Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

LYRASIS  members  and  Sloan  Foundation 


http://www.archive.org/details/rainbowforestplaOOhico 


s 

Bulletin  262  December,  1924     ^  ^51^ 

(Hamtttxcvd  Agrimltural  lExprnm? nt  Butxun 


The  Rainbow  Forest  Plantations 


Guide  to  Experimental  Plots 

and 

Report  of  Progress 
1924 


Forestry  Publication  No.  15 


The  Bulletins  of  this  Station  are  mailed  free  to  citizens  of  Connecticut 
who  apply  for  them,  and  to  other  applicants  as  far  as  the  editions  permits 


CONNECTICUT  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

OFFICERS  AND  STAFF 
December,  1924. 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 
His  Excellency,  Charles  A.  Templeton,  ex-officio,  President. 

George  A.  Hopson,  Secretary Mount  Carmel 

W.  L.  Slate,  Jr.,  Director  and  Treasurer New  Haven 

Joseph.  W.  Alsop Avon 

Charles  R.  Treat Orange 

Elijah  Rogers Southington 

Edward  C.  Schneider Middletown 

Francis  F.  Lincoln Cheshire 

STAFF. 
E.  H.  Jenkins,  Ph.D.,  Director  Emeritus. 


Administration. 


W.  L.  Slate,  Jr.,  B.Sc,  Director  and  Treasurer. 
Miss  L.  M.  Brautlecht,  Bookkeeper  and  Librarian. 
Miss  J.  V.  Berger,  Stenographer  and  Bookkeeper. 
Miss  Mary  Bradley,  Secretary. 
"William  Veitch,  In  charge  of  Buildings  and  Grounds. 


Chemistry. 

Analytical  Laboratory. 


E.  M.  Bailey,  Ph.D.,  Chemist  in  Charge. 

R.  E.  Andrew,  M.A.  ] 

C.  E.  Shepard 

Owen  L.  Nolan  [   Assistatit  Chemists. 

Harry  J.  Fisher,  A.B. 

W.  T.  Mathis  J 

Frank  C.  Sheldon,  Laboratory  Assistant. 

V.  L.  Churchill,  Sampling  Agent. 

Miss  Mabel  Bacon,  Stenographer. 


Biochemical 
Laboratory. 


T.  B.  Osborne,  Ph.D.,  Sc.D.,  Chemist  in  Charge. 


Botany. 


G.  P.  Clinton,  Sc.D.,  Botanist  in  Charge. 

E.  M.  Stoddard,  B.S.,  Pomologist. 

Miss  Florence  A.  McCormick,  Ph.D.,  Pathologist, 

Willis  R.  Hunt.  M.S.,  Graduate  Assistant. 

G.  E.  Graham,  General  Assistant. 

Mrs.  W.  W.  Kelsey,  Secretary, 


Entomology. 


Assistant  Entomologists. 


W.   E.   Britton,   Ph.D.   Entomologist  in    Charge;   State   Ento- 
mologist. 
B.  H.  Walden,  B.Agr. 
M.  P.  Zappe,  B.S. 
Philip  Garman,  Ph.D. 

Roger  B.  Friend,  B.S.,  Graduate  Assistant. 
John  T.  Ashworth,  Deputy  in  Charge  of  Gipsy  Moth  Work. 
R.  C.  Botsford,  Deputy  in  Charge  of  Mosquito  Elimination. 
Miss  Gladys  M.  Finley,  Stenographer. 


Forestry. 


Walter  O.  Filley,  Forester  in  Charge. 
A.  E.  Moss,  M.F.,  Assistant  Forester. 
H.  W.  HicocK,  M.F.,  Assistant  Forester. 
Miss  Pauline  A.  Merchant,  Stenographer. 


Plant  Breeding. 


Donald  F.  Jones,  S.D.,  Geneticist  in  Charge. 
P.  C.  Mangelsdorf,  M.S.,  Graduate  Assistant. 


Soil  Research. 


Tobacco  Sub-station 
at  Windsor 


M.  F.  Morgan,  M.S.,  Investigator. 

N.  T.  Nelson,  Ph.D.,  Plant  Physiologist, 


The  Wilson  H.  Lee  Co. 


RAINBOW 
rOREST   PLANTATIONS 

or    XME 

CONNECTICUT 
\GRICULTURAJL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

■WINDSOR     CONN 
19E3 

Scald,  in  Cl-iQ\na 


The  Rainbow  Forest  Plantations 
Guide  to  Experimental  Plots 

and 

Report  of  Progress 
1924 

By 

Henry  W.  Hi  cock 


Introduction 


HISTORY   AND    DESCRIPTION   OF    TRACT. 

The  Rainbow  Forest  Plantations  of  the  Connecticut  Agricul- 
tural Experiment  Station  occupy  approximately  100  acres  in  the 
towns  of  Windsor  and  East  Granby,  about  one-half  mile  west  of  the 
village  of  Rainbow.  The  land  was  purchased  at  a  low  figure  because 
its  value  for  field  crops  had  been  demonstrated  to  be  very  low.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  cultivation  had  been  given  up  several  years  prior 
to  its  acquisition  by  the  Station  and  it  was  in  various  stages  of 
reversion  to  forest  growth.  During  recent  years  adjoining  prop- 
erty, on  which  the  soil  differs  but  very  little  from  that  on  the 
greater  part  of  the  Station  land,  has  been  cleared  and  utilized 
for  the  production  of  shade  grown  tobacco.  The  land  now  occu- 
pied by  the  plantations  would  probably  yield  a  greater  return  per 
acre  if  utilized  for  shade  tobacco  instead  of  for  the  production  of 
forest  crops. 

The  tract  lies  on  a  practically  level  bench  about  100  feet  in 
elevation  above  the  Farmington  River  and  160  to  180  feet  above 
sea  level.  The  soil*  on  the  major  portion  of  the  area  is  what  was 
originally  mapped  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Soils  in  1899  as  "Windsor 
Sand",  which  name  was  changed  in  their  Bulletin  96  to  "Merrimac 
Coarse  Sand."  It  is  part  of  a  deep  deposit  of  glacial  outwash 
material  which  forms  an  extensive  plain  in  this  portion  of  the 
state.  The  soil  is  a  coarse  sand,  containing  less  than  10%  of  silt 
and  clay,  and  the  texture  is  very  nearly  the  same  to  the  depth 
of  many  feet.  The  surface  soil  contains  sufficient  organic  matter 
to  give  it  a  medium,  brown  color  to  a  depth  of  5  to  7  inches.  The 
subsoil  is  of  a  yellowish  color  to  a  depth  of  about  3  feet,  where  it 
grades  gradually  to  the  dull  gray  which  is  imparted  to  it  by  the 

*Notes  on  soil  conditions  furnished  by  Mr.  M.  F.  Morgan  of  the  Dept. 
of  Soils,  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


104  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262, 

undiscolored  coarse  granules  of  impure  quartz  sand  which  pre- 
dominate. 

In  small  local  areas  (referred  to  in  the  plot  descriptions  as 
"barren  areas")  near  the  western  border  of  the  tract,  expecially 
in  Plots  16,  44  and  45,  the  soil  is  somewhat  coarser  than  is  the  rule, 
and  contains  so  little  silt  and  clay  that  it  has  even  less  coherence 
than  usual.  On  such  areas  all  plant  growth  is  either  much  stunted 
or  is  altogether  lacking.  The  change  from  these  areas  to  those 
that  support  a  normal  plant  growth  is  very  abrupt.  Trees  planted 
on  the  sterile  spots  either  grow  very  slowly  or  do  not  survive 
at  all.  Red  pine  seems  to  make  a  little  better  growth  on  them 
than  does  white,  but  the  needles  of  both  are  yellow  and  in  general 
the  trees  are  crooked  and  sickly. 

On  the  higher  ground  in  the  northeastern  portion  of  the  tract, 
especially  in  Plots  68  and  69  and  in  the  northern  portions  of  Plots 
59  and  60,  the  soil  is  finer  in  texture  consisting  of  about  7  inches 
of  medium  brown  loamy  sand  surface  soil,  with  a  yellow  subsoil  of 
a  similar  texture  to  a  depth  of  about  23^  feet  overlying  the  un- 
weathered  glacial  till.  The  latter  is  made  up  largely  of  a  mass  of 
red  shale  and  sandstone  rock  fragments  of  moderate  size  (less 
than  6  inches  in  diameter) ,  with  a  considerable  admixture  of  gray- 
ish sand  and  fine  gravel.  This  soil  type  was  identified  in  the 
1899  Bureau  of  Soils  Survey  as  "Enfield  Sandy  Loam"  but  this 
name  was  changed  to  "Manchester  Fine  Sand"  in  U.  S.  Bureau 
of  Soils  Bulletin  96. 

The  natural  forest  growth  of  the  region  is  inferior  hardwoods 
(mostly  grey  birch  and  oaks)  and  pitch  pine,  with  some  chestnut 
and  white  pine.  The  latter  species  is  the  only  one  to  make  good 
growth  although  the  chestnut  did  well  before  it  was  attacked  by 
the  blight.  Land  abandoned  for  agriculture  first  seeds  in  to  broom 
sedge  and  similar  plants,  followed  by  grey  birch  and  pitch  pine. 
Later  stages  of  reversion  show  a  diminution  of  grey  birch  and  an 
increase  of  inferior  oaks  and  pitch  pine,  with  some  white  pine  com- 
ing in. 

The  plantations  were  begun  in  1901  on  the  present  tract  and 
in  1902  on  another  known  as  Mundy  Hollow.  The  latter  was  aban- 
doned after  a  few  years.  The  plans  were  made  for  the  first  For- 
ester of  the  Station,  Mr.  Walter  Mulford,  by  the  U.  S.  Forest 
Service,  and  comprised  an  elaborate  series  of  experiments  in  arti- 
ficial regeneration  of  hardwoods  and  conifers  by  seeding  and  plant- 
ing. The  tract  was  divided  up  into  plots  varying  in  size  from  34 
acre  to  6  acres  in  area,  a  large  percentage  of  them  averaging  about 
1  acre.  Wherever  feasible,  the  plots  were  laid  off  as  rectangles. 
Numerous  methods  were  tried  out.  These  are  described  later 
under  individual  plots,  insofar  as  the  results  of  these  methods  are 
now  present.  Many  of  the  earlier  experiments  were  complete 
failures  and  in  such  cases  no  specific  reference  is  made  to  them 
in  this  publication  but  the  reader  is  referred  to  Reports  of  the 
Station  for  the  years  1906,  1907  and  1912. 


INTRODUCTION  105 

Some  method  of  artificial  regeneration  has  been  undertaken 
nearly  every  year  since  the  plantations  were  started,  the  amount 
varying  with  the  funds  available,  until  at  present  practically  the 
entire  tract  is  under  some  kind  of  forest  cover. 

For  a  number  of  years  a  nursery  was  operated  in  connection 
with  the  tract  but  this  practice  was  abandoned  and  stock  pro- 
cured either  from  the  Station  nursery  at  Mt.  Carmel  or  by  pur- 
chase from  commercial  nurseries. 

The  plantations  have  always  been  used  as  a  field  laboratory 
for  the  study  of  insects  and  fungi  by  the  Entomological  and  Botan- 
ical Departments  of  the  Station,  and  since  1919  as  an  object  of  field 
study  by  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry,  who  have 
laid  off  sample  plots  and  made  thinnings  in  some  of  the  older 
stands.    This  work  is  recorded  under  individual  plots. 

The  tract  has  been  under  the  general  oversight  of  a  local  resi- 
dent since  its  inception.  Mr.  Judson  Leonard  had  charge  from 
1901  to  1909;  Mr.  Henry  Palmer,  from  1909  to  1920.  Mr.  Fred- 
erick M.  Snow,  the  present  superintendent,  lives  near  the  end  of 
the  Rainbow  trolley  line  and  about  3^  mile  from  the  plantations. 
He  will  be  glad  to  aid  visitors  in  every  way  possible.  Forestry 
operations  have  so  far  consisted  of  planting,  cleaning,  a  small 
amount  of  thinning  and  control  of  the  white  pine  weevil.  Such 
work  has  been  done  either  by  the  local  superintendent,  by  members 
of  the  staff  of  the  Forestry  Department  or  by  students  from  the 
Yale  School  of  Forestry. 

As  yet  the  tract  has  not  produced  sufficient  revenue  to  pay 
expenses,  although  carrying  charges  have  been  considerably 
lessened  by  the  sale  of  cordwood  from  cleanings,  of  some  chestnut 
and  large  pitch  pine  for  saw-logs,  of  overtopped  spruce  for  Christ- 
mas trees  and  of  Mugho  pine  for  ornamental  purposes.  In  time 
the  tract  as  a  whole  should  become  nearly  self-supporting  although 
it  will  probably  never  be  wholly  so. 

Only  a  small  amount  of  planting  is  needed  to  bring  the  entire 
tract  under  a  forest  cover.  Future  operations  will  consist  of  thin- 
ning, the  older  stands  as  they  need  it,  of  weevil  control,  of  clean- 
ings and  other  improvement  cuttings,  of  pruning  experiments, 
of  experiments  in  the  most  effective  methods  of  cutting  hardwoods 
to  obviate  rapid  sprouting,  etc. 

The  amount  of  damage  from  various  causes  has  been  relatively 
small.  A  rather  elaborate  system  of  exterior  and  interior  fire 
lines,  which  are  harrowed  frequently,  has  been  instrumental  in 
keeping  the  burned  area  under  6  acres  during  the  last  22  years. 
Rodents  kept  the  red  oak  cut  back  so  that  experiments  with  this 
species  are  almost  a  complete  failure.  Several  species  of  insects 
have  proved  troublesome  but  in  only  one  case  has  an  insect  de- 
stroyed the  entire  value  of  an  experiment.  The  locust  borer, 
Cyllene  robiniae,  mined  the  trunks  and  limbs  of  the  black  locust 
so  severely  that  the  experiments  with  this  species  have  been 


106  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN    262. 

abandoned.  The  insect  requiring  the  most  work  to  control  is  the 
white  pine  weevil,  Pissodes  strobi,  which  attacks  the  terminal 
shoot  of  white  pine,  Japanese  red  pine,  Mugho  pine  and  Norway- 
spruce,  thus  deforming  the  stem.  White  pine  is  most  severely 
attacked,  followed  by  the  others  in  the  order  named.  Cutting 
and  burning  the  infested  leaders  is  the  most  practical  method  of 
control.  This  work  is  needed  annually.  Norway  spruce  seems 
to  recover  better  from  the  injury  than  do  the  pines.  The  spruce 
gall,  Chermes  abietes,  has  made  much  of  the  Norway  spruce 
unsightly  and  has  probably  impaired  the  growth  to  some  extent 
although  no  stunting  is  apparent  and  no  trees  have  been  killed. 
The  chestnut  blight,  Endothia  parasitica,  persistently  kills  back 
the  chestnut  trees  used  in  the  early  experiments.  Two  rusts  have 
also  been  found  on  different  species  of  pines.  One,  Peridermium 
cerebrum,  found  on  jack  pine,  has  for  its  alternate  host,  various 
species  of  oaks.  This  rust  was  evidently  brought  in  from  Michigan 
on  the  planting  stock  and  no  new  outbreaks  have  been  found. 
The  other  rust,  Peridermium  pyriforme,  which  has  for  alternate 
hosts  two  species  of  toadflax,  Comandra  pallida  and  C.  umbellata, 
has  been  found  on  Austrian,  Scotch  and  bull  pine.  On  the  first 
two  species  it  does  not  seem  to  have  done  much  damage  beyond 
deforming  a  few  trees.  The  bull  pine,  however,  seems  more  sus- 
ceptible. A  few  trees  die  from  the  disease  each  year  and  indica- 
tions are  that  the  species  will  eventually  be  killed  out  here. 

Description  of  Plots. 

Following  is  a  description  of  the  seventy  plots  which  make 
up  the  tract.  A  preliminary  survey  was  made  by  Mr.  S.  E.  Parker 
in  March,  1923  and  all  measurements  and  counts  are  as  of  that 
date  unless  otherwise  noted.  Heights  were  taken  with  a  10  foot 
pole  or  with  a  Faustmann  hypsometer,  and  diameters  with  a  diame- 
ter tape. 

Plot  1.  Exotic  conifers.  Area  about  .7  acre.  Planted  in  the 
spring  of  1907  by  sections  as  follows:  east  side,  Austrian  pine,  2 
year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet ;  center,  European  larch,  2  year 
seedlings,  5x6  feet;  west  side,  Scotch  pine,  2  year  seedlings,  6x6 
feet.  In  1911  a  fire  destroyed  about  %  of  the  plot  and  in  1913 
the  blanks  were  filled  with  Douglas  fir,  7  year  transplants  and 
Chinese  arbor-vitae,  6  year  transplants.  Two  partial  rows  of 
Japanese  red  pine  planted  about  1913  occur  on  the  west  side  of 
the  plot.  A  description  of  this  species  under  Plot  5  will  cover 
this  part  of  Plot  1.  The  arbor-vitae  was  a  complete  failiire  and  the 
fir,  coming  from  Pacific  Coast  seed,  was  not  hardy  and  is  repre- 
sented by  a  few  stunted  trees.  The  failure  of  these  two  species 
has  left  the  stand  quite  open  and  irregular  although  some  native 
pitch  pine  helps  to  increase  the  density.  Scotch  pine  has  made  the 
best  growth,  averaging  23  feet  tall  and  3  inches  in  diameter.    The 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  107 

trees  are  fairly  uniform  in  size  but  are  somewhat  crooked.  Aus- 
trian pine  has  done  fairly  well,  averaging  9  feet  tall  and  1.4  inches 
in  diameter.  The  larch  averages  1  foot  taller  than  the  Austrian 
pine  but  individuals  vary  greatly,  some  equaling  the  Scotch  pine 
in  height  while  others  are  mere  shrubs.  The  plot  was  cleaned  by 
lopping  hardwood  brush  in  1919.  Several  individuals  of  Scotch 
and  Austrian  pine  infected  with  Peridermium  pyriforme  (See 
page  106)  were  removed  in  1910. 

Plot  2.  White  pine.  Area  .8  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1907  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  6x6,  5x5,  4x4,  and  3x3 
feet.  In  1911  a  fire  destroyed  the  north  end  of  the  plot  including 
the  4x4  and  3x3  foot  spacings  and  in  the  spring  of  1913  blanks 
were  filled  with  8  year  white  pine  transplants  spaced  5x5  feet, 
thereby  destroying  the  value  of  the  original  experiment  in  differ- 
ent spacings.  On  the  unburned  south  end  only  about  ten  per  cent 
of  the  trees  are  missing  and  the  stand  is  just  closing.  Only  a  few 
trees  have  any  dead  limbs.  The  average  size  on  the  6x6  foot 
spacing  is  height  13  feet,  diameter  2.0  inches  and  on  the  5x5 
foot,  height  9  feet;  diameter  1.9  inches.  The  1913  planting  aver- 
ages 5.5  feet  high  but  is  very  open  and  irregular  owing  to  the 
failure  of  about  50%  of  the  trees.  Weevil  damage  (See  page  106) 
amounts  to  25%  for  the  plot  as  a  whole.  A  more  recent  fire  (1923) 
destroyed  about  3^  of  the  1913  planting.  The  plot  was  cleaned  by 
lopping  birch  in  1919. 

Plot  3.  Pitch  pine.  Area  1.3  acres.  In  1902  seed  sown  on 
cultivated  strips  1}^  feet  wide  and  4  feet  apart  as  follows:  on  the 
south  half  at  the  rate  of  2  pounds  per  acre  and  on  the  north  half 
at  the  rate  of  1  pound  per  acre.  The  seed  was  brushed  in.  On 
the  south  half  a  very  dense  stand  resulted.  Trees  average  1  foot 
apart  in  the  rows,  17  feet  in  height  and  2  inches  in  diameter,  and 
have  dead  limbs  for  8  feet  above  ground.  About  60%  of  the  trees 
have  died  from  crowding.  The  stand  on  the  north  half  is  not  so 
dense.  Trees  average  6  feet  apart  in  the  rows,  15  feet  in  height 
and  3  inches  in  diameter,  and  have  dead  limbs  for  3  feet  above 
ground.  Very  few  trees  have  died  from  crowding.  Spacing  in  the 
rows  is  not  imiform  and  the  stand  on  both  sections  is  very  uneven, 
especially  on  the  north  half  but  here  gaps  are  being  filled  by 
natural  seeding.  Several  trees  badly  infected  with  Peridermium 
pyriforme  were  removed  in  1910.  On  both  sections  the  trees  have 
the  poor  form  characteristic  of  pitch  pine  in  this  region.  Com- 
pare with  Plot  49. 

Plot  4.  White  pine — Red  oak — Scotch  pine.  Area  .7  acre. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1904  with  red  oak,  3  acorns  in  a  hole,  and 
white  pine  2  year  seedlings,  spacing  6x6  feet,  a  solid  row  of  oak 
alternating  with  a  row  of  oak  and  pine  mixed.  Losses  were  small 
for  the  first  three  years.  Since  then  rodents  have  kept  the  oak 
cut  back  so  that  at  present  only  40  %  of  them  are  living  and  of 


108  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

these  only  15%  have  made  even  fair  growth.  However,  an  occa- 
sional individual  has  done  nearly  as  well  as  the  pine  showing  that 
the  species  will  grow  on  poor  soil  if  not  attacked  by  rodents.  About 
1913,  gaps  caused  by  failure  in  the  oak  on  the  south  end  of  the 
plot  were  filled  with  Scotch  pine;  the  north  end  remains  unfilled, 
leaving  the  white  pine  spaced  12  x  12  feet.  With  this  wide  spacing 
the  white  pine  is  thick  boled,  badly  deformed  by  weevil  and  shows 
dead  branches  for  only  3-4  feet.  Where  Scotch  pine  has  been  used 
it  has  closed  the  stand  and  is  approximating  the  white  pine  in 
height.  It  has  dead  branches  for  3-4  feet  above  ground  but  it  has 
not  yet  influenced  the  pruning  of  the  white  pine  growing  with  it. 
Average  sizes:  heights, — white  pine,  19  feet;  red  oak,  7  feet  and 
Scotch  pine,  16  feet:  diameters, — white  pine,  4.5  inches;  red  oak, 
1.0  inch  and  Scotch  pine,  3.0  inches.  The  north  end  of  this  plot 
may  be  compared  with  Plots  48  and  51  where  red  oak  and  white 
pine  were  planted  together  but  with  different  arrangement  of 
species  and  the  south  end  with  Plots  35,  36  and  37  where  Scotch 
pine  has  been  used  as  a  filler  in  older  white  pine  plantations.. 

Plot  5.  Japanese  red  pine  and  White  pine.  Area  1.4  acres. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1910  with  Japanese  red  pine  2  year  seed- 
lings, spaced  6x6  feet.  The  following  summer  was  very  dry  and 
a  50%  loss  resulted.  Blanks  were  filled  in  the  spring  of  1911  with 
3  year  transplants  of  the  same  species.  Further  failures  resulted 
and  in  1913  blanks  were  filled  with  white  pine  4  year  transplants. 
The  present  stand  is  practically  complete  and  is  made  up  of  ^ 
Japanese  red  and  ]/^  white  pine.  The  plot  is  just  about  to  close. 
It  has  been  kept  free  of  hardwood  competition  and  is  therefore 
open  grown.  The  Japanese  red  pine  shows  a  10%  damage  by 
weevil  as  compared  with  45%  for  the  white  pine.  The  latter 
averages  8  feet  in  height  and  the  former  7  feet.  The  Japanese  red 
pine  does  not  appear  to  be  a  good  tree  to  plant  in  the  open  be- 
cause of  its  tendency  to  divide  at  the  base  into  many  stems.  In 
the  spring  of  1924  all  leaders,  except  one,  were  removed  from  each 
Japanese  red  pine  in  an  attempt  to  make  this  species  produce  one 
good  stem.  The  results  of  this  work  are  not  yet  apparent  but  the 
plot  may  be  compared  with  Plot  52  where  this  tree  has  been 
grown  under  similar  conditions  without  reducing  the  number  of 
leaders.  The  plot  may  also  be  compared  with  Plot  19  where  the 
species  was  grown  for  about  10  years  under  a  dense  shade  of  birch. 
Japanese  red  pine  has  borne  cones  very  prolifically  for  a  number  of 
years  and  many  seedlings  up  to  10  inches  tall  are  growing  in  the 
openings. 

Plot  6.  Western  yellow  (bull)  pine  and  White  pine.  Area 
2.7  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1908  with  bull  pine  2  year 
seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet.  Losses  up  to  1912  had  amounted  to 
45%  and  in  1912  and  1913  blanks  were  filled  with  4  year  white 
pine  transplants.     Further  losses  have  occurred  and  these  have 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  109 

not  been  filled,  so  that  the  present  stand  is  35%  bull  pine,  35% 
white  pine  and  30%  blanks.  The  white  pine,  even  though  it  has 
been  very  heavily  damaged  by  weevil  (65%),  now  equals  the  bull 
pine  in  height  which  now  averages  6.5  feet.  The  bull  pine  is  sub- 
ject to  attack  by  Peridermmm  pyriforme,  a  fungous  disease  which 
kills  a  few  trees  each  year.  In  fact,  it  seems  probable  that  this 
disease  may  eventually  kill  out  the  species  here.  Compare  with 
Plot  66. 

Plot  7.  White  pine.  Area  2.3  acres.  Planted  in  the  fall  of 
1913  with  3  year  transplants,  spaced  6x6  feet,  as  a  test  of  fall  plant- 
ing. The  experiment  was  a  complete  success,  over  95%  of  the 
trees  being  alive  at  present.  The  stand  is  irregular,  the  trees  vary- 
ing in  height  from  2  to  10  feet  and  averaging  6  feet.  This  uneven- 
ness  is  due  to  some  extent  to  weevils  which  have  attacked  60% 
of  the  trees  but  numerous  individuals  are  stunted  without  having 
been  attacked  by  weevil.  The  stand  apparently  underwent  a 
period  of  stagnation  for  about  eight  years  and  the  irregularity  may 
be  due  to  the  fact  that  some  trees  are  recovering  sooner  than  others. 
This  stagnation  period  is  characteristic  of  all  white  pine  planta- 
tions on  the  tract.  The  species  seems  to  grow  slowly  for  a  longer 
period  after  planting  than  most  of  the  others  used.  The  plot  has 
had  numerous  weevil  cuttings  and  was  entirely  cleared  of  birch 
in  the  winter  of  1921-1922. 

Plot  8a.  Red  pine  and  Norway  spruce.  Area  1.7  acres.  Cleared 
in  the  winter  of  1921-1922  of  birch  for  cordwood  and  planted  in  the 
spring  of  1922  with  red  pine  and  Norway  spruce  3  year  transplants, 
spaced  6x6  feet,  and  alternating  by  rows  except  the  four  rows  on 
the  west  side  which  are  all  pine.  Most  of  the  birch  was  at  the 
south  end  of  the  plot.  The  plantation  is  over  90%  complete  but 
the  pine  averages  18  inches  tall  and  looks  thrifty,  whereas  the 
spruce  is  only  6  inches  in  height  and  is  yellow  and  sickly  except 
where  it  received  shade  from  small  birch  sprouts.  It  would  seem 
that  this  mixture  is  not  feasible  in  the  open  as  the  pine  will  prob- 
ably suppress  the  spruce  in  the  same  way  that  the  white  pine  did 
on  Plot  69,  leaving  the  red  pine  spaced  6  x  12  feet  with  the  spruce 
forming  an  understory.  The  mixture  might  have  been  more 
successful  under  a  heavy  brush  cover  which  would  have  held  back 
the  pine  more  than  the  spruce  and  acted  as  a  nurse  for  the  latter 
until  it  was  well  started.     (See  plot  42.) 

Plot  8b.  Norway  spruce.  Area  1.3  acres.  Cleared  with  Plot 
8a  leaving  a  few  scattering  native  white  pines  about  15  feet  high. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1924  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5 
feet,  as  a  Christmas  tree  experiment.  The  stock  was  small,  the 
season  dry,  and  only  about  10%  of  the  trees  survived  the  first 
summer.  Plot  may  be  compared  with  Plot  18  where  white  spruce 
stock  of  the  same  size  was  planted  under  an  overwood.    The  latter 


110  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT   STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

plantation  is  over  90%  complete  thus  demonstrating  the  value  of 
cover  during  the  early  years. 

Plot  8b  contains  much  chestnut  from  an  experiment  started  in 
1903.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  species,  even  though 
killed  back  repeatedly  by  blight,  still  persists  on  this  poor  leachy 
soil  better  than  most  of  the  hardwoods  used,  red  oak  and  locust 
excepted. 

Plot  9.  Pitch  pine  and  Hardwoods.  Area  about  .6  acre. 
Natural  growth,  not  planted. 

Plot  10.  Norway  spruce.  Area  about  .6  acre.  Planted  in 
1912  under  a  stand  of  old  growth  chestnut.  Spacing  is  irregular 
but  averages  about  8x8  feet.  The  chestnut  died  and  was  removed 
in  1922  leaving  a  younger  growth,  consisting  principally  of  oak,  as  a 
cover  for  the  spruce.  This  cover  was  opened  up  in  the  spring  of 
1923  to  give  the  spruce  more  light  and  will  be  further  reduced  or 
removed  at  a  later  date.  The  spruce  has  grown  slowly  but  the  trees 
are  healthy,  except  for  a  small  amount  of  weevil  damage,  and  show 
every  indication  of  coming  through  and  forming  a  stand.  Spruce 
is  very  tolerant  and  while  it  will  not  make  fast  growth  under  dense 
shade  it  will  persist  for  a  long  time  and,  when  released,  makes  a 
good  recovery  and  increases  in  size  rapidly.  Compare  with  Plot 
42,  an  older  spruce  plantation  under  shade  which  has  been  reduced 
from  time  to  time. 

Plot  11.  Native  white  pine.  Birch  cutting  experiment.  Area 
.7  acre.  The  north  end  of  the  plot  has  been  devoted  for  some  years 
to  an  experiment  in  bringing  a  scattered  stand  of  natural  repro- 
duction of  white  pine  through  a  heavy  cover  of  old  field  grey 
birch.  The  pine  is  doing  fairly  well  but  has  been  badly  weeviled 
and  is  of  poor  form. 

In  October,  1924,  an  experiment  was  started  to  determine  the 
sprouting  qualities  of  birch  under  different  methods  of  cutting  at 
different  times  of  year.  This  experiment  should  give  some  valu- 
able information  on  the  best  season  to  release  plantations  and  the 
best  cutting  methods  to  use  in  order  to  get  a  minimum  of  sprouts. 
The  experiment  was  laid  out  as  a  niunber  of  different  series  of  four 
sections  each,  each  series  to  be  cut  at  a  different  time  of  year.  One 
series  was  cut  during  October,  1924.  Another  will  be  cut  in  the 
spring  of  1925,  and  still  another  in  mid-summer,  1925.  The  four 
sections  in  each  series  are  as  follows : 

a.  Check — no  cutting. 

b.  Birch  cut  off  close  to  the  ground. 

c.  Birch  lopped  off  2  to  3  feet  above  ground. 

d.  Birch  lopped  partly  off  and  bent  over  so  that  the  trees  will 

still  continue  to  live. 

Plot  12.  White  pine.  Area  .6  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1902  with  3  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet,  under  a  cover  of  grey 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  111 

birch  15  to  20  feet  tall.  Fail  places  were  filled  in  the  spring  of  1904 
with  3  year  transplants.  The  cover  was  removed  in  1910  and  1911 
and  a  final  release  cutting  was  made  in  1919.  This  is  one  of  the 
best  plantations  of  white  pine  on  the  tract.  Because  of  the  heavy 
cover  for  the  first  10  years  the  average  growth  has  not  been  rapid 
(average  height  19  feet  and  diameter  3  inches)  but  the  trees  are  of 
excellent  form,  uniform  in  size  and  with  almost  no  injury  from 
weevil.  Dead  limbs  extend  to  7  feet  above  the  ground  and  are 
quite  small.  Annual  height  growth  aknost  doubled  after  the 
cover  was  removed  in  1910-11. 

Plot  13.  Norway  spruce  and  Balsam  fir.  Area  about  1.2 
acres.  In  1910,  71  balsam  firs  were  planted  along  the  northern 
border  of  Plots  11  and  12,  and  about  1916  the  remainder  of  the  plot 
with  the  exception  of  a  narrow  strip  to  the  west  of  Plot  12  was 
planted  with  Norway  spruce.  Spacing  is  irregular  but  averages 
about  8x8  feet.  Planting  was  done  under  a  moderately  heavy 
cover  consisting  of  old  pitch  pine  and  a  lower  stand  of  hardwoods. 
Both  spruce  and  fir  average  5  feet  tall  and  show  the  effect  of  too 
much  shade.  However,  they  are  of  good  color  and  look  healthy, 
and  on  removal  of  the  overwood,  should  make  an  increased  growth 
in  height.  The  cover  was  thinned  in  the  fall  of  1923  to  give  the 
planted  trees  more  light  but  a  further  thinning  is  needed  as  the 
cover  is  still  too  dense. 

Plot  14.  Scotch  pine.  Area  1.2  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1907  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x6  feet,  the  trees  set  in  fur- 
rows plowed  through  the  brush  to  try  out  Scotch  pine  in  competition 
with  an  advanced  hardwood  growth.  A  part  of  the  brush  was 
removed  in  1910  and  the  balance  in  1913.  A  second  release  cut- 
ting was  made  in  1919  and  third  in  1924.  This  should  be  the  last 
one  needed.  In  addition,  several  large  chestnuts  were  removed 
from  the  south  side  in  1921.  The  experiment  was  only  a  partial 
success  because,  in  spite  of  frequent  releasings,  the  hardwoods  killed 
out  over  3^  of  the  pine.  However,  those  that  have  survived  have 
made  good  growth  and  are  in  sufficient  numbers  to  form  the  final 
stand.  Average  height  22  feet;  diameter  4.5  inches.  Dead 
branches  extend  for  10  feet  above  the  ground.  This  plot  demon- 
strates very  well  the  inadvisability  of  attempting  to  grow  Scotch 
pine  under  any  kind  of  cover.  The  species  is  very  intolerant  and 
cannot  stand  even  moderate  shade.  Compare  with  Plot  23  which 
was  kept  entirely  free  of  brush. 

Plot  15.  White  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1906  with  3  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x6  feet.  This  plot  was 
started  and  has  been  treated  in  about  the  same  manner  as  Plot 
14,  but  the  trees  show  far  less  injury  from  hardwood  competition 
than  do  the  Scotch  pines.  About  90%  of  the  trees  are  still  living 
and  the  result  is  a  very  dense  stand  with  trees  averaging  19  feet 
in  height  and  3.5  inches  in  diameter.    Dead  branches  extend  for 


112  CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

6  feet  above  ground.  All  brush  was  cleaned  from  the  plot  in  1913 
and  a  second  and  final  release  cutting  was  made  in  1919.  Weevil 
damage  has  been  very  slight,  probably  because  of  the  density  of 
the  stand  and  the  fact  that  the  trees  were  in  brush  for  seven  years. 
The  stand  offers  a  good  example  of  the  results  of  close  spacing, 
i.  e.,  good  form  with  small  side  branches  that  are  killed  early. 
It  is  probably  too  dense  for  practical  purposes  as  the  first  thinning 
will  not  yield  enough  to  pay  for  making  it.  All  vegetation  has 
been  shaded  out  and  2  to  3  inches  of  needles  cover  the  ground. 

Plot  16.  White  pine — Red  pine — Japanese  red  pine.  Area 
3.7  acres.  Spacing  5x5  feet.  Planted  in  1917  as  follows:  west 
side,  pure  red  pine;  center,  white  pine  and  Japanese  red  pine  alter- 
nating by  rows;  and  east  side,  red  pine  and  white  pine  alternating 
by  rows.  The  red  pine  has  made  the  best  growth,  averaging  5  feet 
in  height,  followed  by  the  white  with  4  feet  and  the  Japanese  red 
with  3  feet.  The  stand  is  practically  complete,  blanks  amounting 
to  less  than  15%.  The  white  and  the  Japanese  red  pines  have  both 
been  attacked  by  the  weevil,  the  former  more  heavily  than  the 
latter.  The  Japanese  red  has  developed  the  same  bushy  habit 
as  in  Plots  5  and  52,  and  is  bearing  cones  prolifically  but  no  seed- 
lings were  found.  The  stand  has  not  yet  closed  although  the 
pure  red  pine  on  the  west  side  has  nearly  done  so.  Except  imme- 
diately under  the  trees,  the  crowns  have  not  killed  out  the  vegeta- 
tive cover.  Ninnerous  barren  areas  occur  on  this  plot.  (See 
page  104.) 

Plot  17.  Headquarters  Site.  Area  .9  acre.  The  east  end  of 
this  plot  is  used  as  a  location  for  a  portable  headquarters  cabin. 
The  remainder  of  the  plot  which  was  formerly  the  old  nursery 
site  contains  an  assortment  of  many  kinds  of  trees  left  in  the  old 
nursery  rows,  together  with  enough  later  plantings  of  red  and 
white  pine  to  make  up  a  stand. 

In  October,  1924,  an  experiment  in  pruning  young  conifers 
was  started  directly  behind  the  cabin  in  a  planting  of  red' pine 
made  in  the  fall  of  1919.  The  experiment  includes  some  50  trees 
divided  about  equally  among  4  rows.  The  row  nearest  the  cabin 
was  pruned  to  leave  a  leader  and  two  whorls  of  branches,  the  next 
to  leave  a  leader  and  one  whorl,  the  third  to  leave  a  leader  and  3 
whorls  and  the  fourth  left  unpruned  as  a  check.  For  row  1  (east), 
the  live  crown  averages  about  Y2  the  total  height  of  the  tree;  for 
row  2,  y^  the  height;  for  row  3,  %  the  height;  and  for  row  4,  the 
entire  height.  A  whorl  of  branches  is  to  be  removed  from  each 
row  (the  check  excepted)  each  year,  the  object  being  to  find  out 
how  much  the  crowns  can  be  reduced  without  diminishing  the 
growing  power  of  the  trees. 

Plot  18.  White  spruce.  Area  .7  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring 
of  1924  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  8x8  feet,  under  a  cover  made 
up  of  pitch  pine  8  to  10  inches  in  diameter  with  an  understory  of 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  113 

smaller  hardwoods.  Less  than  10%  of  the  trees  had  died  at  the 
end  of  the  first  growing  season,  demonstrating  the  fact  that 
spruce  (2  year  stock)  can  be  planted  successfully  on  a  leachy  soil 
if  given  sufficient  protection  against  drying  out.  This  plot  may 
be  compared  with  8b  where  small  stock  of  Norway  spruce  was 
planted  in  the  open,  the  result  being  almost  a  complete  failure. 
The  cover  should  be  removed,  or  at  least  greatly  reduced,  within 
five  years. 

Plot  19.  Japanese  red  pine.  Area  1.2  acres.  Planted  in  the 
spring  of  1910  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet.  Loss  was 
heavy  and  blanks  were  filled  in  1911  with  3  year  transplants  of 
the  same  species.  There  were  further  failures  and  at  present  the 
stand  is  only  50%  stocked.  In  1919  the  hardwoods,  which  had 
completely  outgrown  the  pine,  were  thinned  but  not  heavily 
enough  and  in  1922  they  were  removed  altogether.  The  interesting 
feature  on  this  plot  is  that  hardwood  competition  forced  the  pine 
to  confine  its  growth  normally  to  one  stem.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
this  competition  was  so  severe  that  it  caused  the  pine  to  become 
very  slender  and  crooked.  Since  releasing,  however,  the  trees 
have  recovered  and  made  a  much  increased  height  growth.  Weevil 
damage  has  amounted  to  very  little  and  the  production  of  cones 
has  been  small.  This  plot  forms  a  very  marked  contrast  to  Plot  5 
where  this  species  was  planted  in  the  open.  The  average  height 
on  Plot  19  is  12  feet,  nearly  twice  that  on  Plot  5.  It  would  seem 
that  the  proper  conditions  under  which  to  grow  this  tree  success- 
fully would  be  under  a  cover  kept  sufficiently  dense  to  prevent 
the  pine  from  producing  several  stems,  but  not  dense  enough  to 
cause  suppression  and  crooked,  slender  boles.  The  species  seems 
to  be  fairly  tolerant  of  shade,  probably  ranking  with  red  pine  in 
this  respect. 

Plots  20  and  21.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  1.3  acres 
each.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1910,  using  4  year  transplants  of 
white  pine  and  2  year  seedlings  of  Scotch  pine.  Spacing  5x5  feet, 
the  species  alternating  by  rows.  Scattered  white  pine  set  out  in 
1904  were  ignored  in  the  1910  planting.  The  experiment  does  not 
promise  to  be  a  success.  The  Scotch  pine  is  growing  faster  than 
the  white  and  probably  will  suppress  it.  In  fact  the  Scotch  pine 
compares  favorably  with  the  white  planted  in  1904.  Failures 
have  amounted  to  over  30%,  chiefly  in  the  white  pine  and  the 
stand  is  ragged  and  has  not  closed.  The  Scotch  pine  has  dead 
limbs  for  a  height  of  4  feet,  while  the  white  has  no  dead  limbs. 
The  Scotch  pine  averages  17  feet  in  height  and  3  inches  in  diameter; 
the  white  averages  10  feet  tall  and  23^  inches  in  diameter  (1904 
planting  excluded).  Weevil  damage  in  the  white  pine  has  been 
very  slight,  due  probably  to  the  fact  that  this  species  has  always 
been  shorter  than  the  Scotch  and  therefore  protected  by  it.  These 
plots  demonstrate  that  it  is  not  feasible  to  plant  white  and  Scotch 


114  CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

pine  at  the  same  time  in  mixture.  Comparison  may  be  made 
with  Plots  4,  35,  36,  37  and  56  where  Scotch  pine  was  used  as  a 
filler  in  white  pine  plantations  that  were  much  older,  and  with 
Plot  34  where  white  pine  was  used  as  a  filler  in  a  Scotch  pine  stand 
that  was  several  years  older. 

Plot  22.  Red  pine  and  White  pine.  Area  .8  acre.  Planted  in 
the  spring  of  1902  with  red  pine  4  year  transplants,  spaced  43^2  x  5 
feet  (except  for  about  100  trees  at  the  north  end  which  are  white 
pine  apparently  planted  at  the  same  time  and  with  the  same 
spacing).  Failures  in  the  red  pine  were  filled  in  1904  with  the 
same  species.  The  stand  has  but  few  blanks.  The  red  pine 
averages  20  feet  tall  and  3.8  inches  in  diameter  and  the  white, 
16  feet  tall  and  2.4  inches  in  diameter.  Red  pine  has  dead  branches 
for  7  feet  above  ground  while  the  white  has  them  for  only  4  feet. 
The  dead  branches  on  the  red  pine  are  small,  brittle  and  may  be 
broken  off  easily  though  most  of  them  still  persist.  The  white 
pine  has  been  damaged  but  very  little  by  weevil,  probably  because 
this  block  of  trees  is  almost  completely  surrounded  by  taller  trees. 
This  plot  may  be  compared  with  Plots  23,  28  and  49,  all  of  which 
were  planted  at  the  same  time  and  under  about  the  same  condi- 
tions, but  with  different  species.  The  spacing  on  Plot  22,  as  well 
as  on  Plots  23,  24  and  28,  is  too  close  from  a  practical  standpoint. 
The  first  thinning  will  not  yield  enough  returns  to  pay  for  making 
it.  Theoretically,  the  narrow  spacing  is  ideal  insofar  as  it  causes 
the  trees  to  produce  small  side  limbs  which  die  early. 

Plot  23.  Scotch  pine.  Area  .6  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1902  with  3  year  seedlings,  spaced  4x5  feet.  The  plot  has  been 
kept  free  from  hardwood  competition  and  there  have  been  practi- 
cally no  failures.  Scotch  pine  has  shown  the  best  growth  of  any 
tree  used  on  the  tract,  with  the  possible  exception  of  black  locust. 
Heights  now  average  29  feet  and  diameters  3.5  inches,  while  some 
individuals  have  reached  a  height  of  33  feet  and  a  diameter  of  5 
inches.  Dead  branches  extend  for  14  feet  above  the  ground  and 
are  quite  rotten,  more  so  than  those  of  red  and  white  pine  of  the 
same  age  and  spacing.  The  trees  are  of  good  form  although  there 
is  the  usual  tendency  of  this  species  to  make  crooked  boles.  Scotch 
pine  is  quite  intolerant,  more  so  than  either  red  or  white  pine.  So 
far  as  can  be  judged  from  20  years  of  growth,  Scotch  pine  is  an 
excellent  tree  for  use  on  sandy  soils  provided  it  does  not  have  to 
compete  with  hardwoods.  Compare  with  Plot  14  for  the  effects 
of  hardwood  competition  and  with  Plots  22,  24,  28  and  49  for  the 
results  from  planting  other  species  at  the  same  time  and  under 
approximately  the  same  conditions. 

A  few  trees  infected  with  Peridermium  pyriforme  have  been 
removed  from  this  plot  but  the  disease  does  not  seem  to  have 
made  much  headway  and  little  trouble  is  expected  from  it  with 
this  species. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  115 

In  1919  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off  and 
thinned  a  sample  plot  covering  .089  acre..  After  thinning  there 
were  left  on  this  plot  122  trees  which  is  at  the  rate  of  1,370  per  acre. 
The  volume  of  these  trees  was  96.3  cu.  ft.*  of  wood  or  1,083  cu.  ft. 
per  acre. 

In  1924  this  sample  plot  was  thinned  again  removing  50  trees 
or  562  per  acre  and  39.9  cu.  ft.  of  wood  or  448  cu.  ft.  per  acre. 
After  this  second  thinning  there  were  left  72  trees  or  808  per  acre 
and  89.2  cu.  ft.  of  wood  or  1,002  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  The  increase  on 
this  plot  for  the  5  years  1919-1924  had  therefore  been  at  the  rate 
of  368  cu.  ft.  per  acre,  or  74  cu.  ft.  per  acre  per  year. 

In  1920  another  sample  plot  covering  .0804  acre  was  laid  off 
as  a  check  for  the  one  described  above  and  left  luithinned.  The 
number  of  trees  on  this  plot  was  167  or  2,077  per  acre  and  the 
volume  111.9  cu.  ft.  or  1,392  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  This  plot  was 
remeasured  again  in  1924  at  which  time  there  were  151  trees  (16 
having  died  from  natural  causes)  or  1,878  per  acre.  The  volume 
of  these  was  135.05  cu.  ft.  of  wood  or  1,679  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  The 
increase  for  the  four  years  1920-1924  had  therefore  been  287  cu. 
ft.  per  acre  or  72  cu.  ft.  per  acre  per  year.  Both  sample  plots  will 
be  remeasured  and  the  thinned  plot  will  be  thinned  again  in  1929. 

Plot  24.  Austrian  pine — Red  pine^White  pine.  Area  .4  acre. 
Planted  as  follows:  south  end,  Austrian  pine  4  year  seedlings, 
spaced  4x5  feet,  summer  of  1902 ;  center,  red  pine  4  year  seedlings, 
spaced  43^x5  feet,  spring  of  1902;  north  end,  white  pine,  spaced 
43^x5  feet,  1905. 

The  plot  is  chiefly  red  pine,  the  Austrian  and  the  white  con- 
sisting of  two  blocks  of  about  100  trees  and  50  trees  respectively. 
The  white  pine  being  younger  is  not  compared  with  the  others. 
The  Austrian  averages  23  feet  tall  and  4  inches  in  diameter  and 
the  red  21  feet  tall  and  3  inches  in  diameter,  but  the  former  tends 
to  have  a  crooked  bole.  The  Austrian  pine  has  dead  branches  for 
10  feet  above  ground  while  the  red  pine  has  them  for  only  seven. 
A  carpet  of  needles  2  to  3  inches  deep  covers  the  ground  and  all 
vegetation  has  been  shaded  out.  Red  pine  on  this  plot,  as  well  as 
on  Plot  22,  has  not  grown  as  fast  as  Scotch  pine  on  Plot  23,  but  is 
straight  boled  and  generally  of  better  form  than  the  latter.  The 
fact  that  the  Austrian  pine  averages  greater  in  height  and  diameter 
than  the  red  pine  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  total  number  of 
the  former  is  relatively  small  and  a  greater  percentage  of  the 
trees  border  on  roads  which  gives  them  more  growing  space. 
Austrian  pine  on  Plot  24  has  been  subject  to  a  small  amount  of 
infection  by  Peridermium  pyriforme  but  little  damage  has  resulted. 

In  1920  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off  a 
sample  plot  covering  .0919  acre  in  the  red  pine.     The  results  of 


*Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended  to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


116  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

the  counts  and  measurements  were:  number  of  trees  162  or  1,763 
per  acre;  volimie  82.'^  cu.  ft.*  of  wood  or  897  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  This 
sample  plot  will  be  remeasured  and  thinned  and  a  check  plot 
established  in  1925. 

Plot  25.  White  pine,  wild  stock.  Area  .8  acre.  Planted  in  the 
spring  of  1902  with  collected  seedlings  8  to  18  inches  tall  from 
Granby.  Fail  places  were  filled  in  1903  with  hardwoods,  which 
died  and  were  replaced  with  wild  stock  in  1905.  Spacing  4l}/2  x  b}/2 
feet.  Practically  all  the  pines  planted  are  present  but  a  consider- 
able number  are  dead  from  crowding.  Heights  average  23  feet 
and  diameters  4  inches.  Dead  branches  extend  for  7  feet  above 
ground  and  are  small  but  quite  persistent.  Weevil  damage  has 
been  relatively  small,  due  possibly  to  close  spacing.  As  an  experi- 
ment in  the  use  of  wild  stock  this  plot  is  a  success  but  at  present 
it  would  probably  cost  more  to  collect  such  stock  than  to  buy  it 
from  a  nursery.  Compare  with  red,  Scotch  and  Austrian  pine  on 
Plots  22,  23  and  24,  and  with  other  white  pine  from  nursery  stock 
on  Plots  12  and  28. 

Note.  The  form  of  the  crowns  on  Plot  25  is  quite  different  from 
those  on  Plot  28  which  was  planted  at  the  same  time  but  with 
nursery  stock.  On  the  latter  plot  the  side  branches  are  quite  long, 
project  nearly  in  a  horizontal  plane,  are  interlocking  and  are  dead 
for  9  feet  above  ground.  The  crowns  of  the  wild  stock  have  short 
slender  branches  which  tend  to  grow  upward.  They  do  not  seem 
to  have  interfered  with  each  other  greatly  and  are  dead  for  only 
7  feet  above  ground.  The  general  appearance  of  Plot  25  closely 
resembles  that  on  12  where  nursery  stock  was  planted  and  re- 
mained for  nearly  10  years  under  a  dense  cover. 

Plot  26.  White  pine  with  various  spacings.  Area  1.2  acres. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1903  with  2  year  transplants  spaced  6x6 
feet  on  the  south  end,  5x5  feet  in  the  center,  and  4x4  feet  on  the 
north  end.  Failures  amounting  to  about  10%  occurred  in  each 
section.  At  the  end  of  10  years  the  trees  with  the  4x4  foot  spacing 
had  made  the  best  growth  but  at  20  years  the  6x6  foot  spacing 
had  produced  larger  trees  than  either  of  the  others,  the  average 
being  20  feet  in  height  and  4.3  inches  in  diameter.  The  5x5  foot 
spacing  is  next  with  a  height  of  16  feet  and  a  diameter  of  3.5  inches, 
and  the  4x4  foot  spacing  last  with  a  height  of  14  feet  and  a  diame- 
ter of  2.2  inches.  The  trees  with  the  4x4  foot  spacing  showed  the 
greatest  height  growth  between  the  8th  and  12th  years,  falling  off 
after  that  time.  Those  with  the  6x6  foot  spacing  have  grown 
rapidly  since  the  fifth  year.  Those  in  the  5x5  foot  section  have 
grown  slowly  during  the  entire  period.  Damage  by  weevil  has 
been  heaviest  in  the  6x6  foot  spacing  and  lightest  in  the  4x4  foot. 


*Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended  to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  117 

Vegetation  has  been  killed  out  in  all  three  sections  and  2  to  3 
inches  of  needles  cover  the  ground.  With  all  three  spacings,  trees 
have  dead  limbs  for  7  feet  above  ground,  but  this  amounts  to 
about  50%  of  the  total  height  in  the  4x4  foot  section  and  only  30% 
in  the  6x6  foot.  All  dead  limbs  are  quite  firm.  Those  on  the  6x6 
foot  spacing  are  much  larger  than  on  the  others.  Because  it  results 
in  less  injury  from  weevil  and  in  the  production  of  small  side 
branches,  the  4x4  foot  spacing  would  be  more  satisfactory  if 
thinnings  could  be  made  at  about  the  fifteenth  year.  As  this  is 
not  feasible,  it  is  probably  better  to  grow  this  species  with  a  wider 
spacing,  attempting  to  get  protection  from  weevil  and  to  prevent 
the  growth  of  side  limbs  by  using  a  hardwood  cover,  and  thinning 
it  gradually  for  the  first  15  years. 

Plot  27.  White  pine.  Area  1.0  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1904  with  white  pine  2  year  seedlings  and  chestnut  1  year  seedlings, 
2  rows  of  pine  and  2  rows  of  chestnut,  spacing  5x5  feet.  The 
chestnut  failed  and  the  chestnut  rows  were  filled  in  the  spring  of 
1910  with  white  pine  4  year  transplants  spaced  6  feet  apart  in  the 
rows.  The  results  of  using  white  pine  as  a  filler  in  an  older  planta- 
tion of  the  same  species  are  not  entirely  satisfactory.  The  older 
pines  are  bushy  with  no  dead  limbs  and  have  been  heavily  damaged 
by  weevil.  They  average  17  feet  in  height  and  4.4  inches  in  diam- 
eter while  the  1910  trees  average  11  feet  in  height  and  1.8  inches  in 
diameter.  The  latter  show  only  a  10%  damage  by  weevil  and  are 
generally  of  good  form.  The  plot  as  a  whole  is  quite  ragged  and 
uneven  and  has  not  closed.  The  1910  planting  may,  because  of 
better  protection  from  weevil  and  side  crowding  from  the  1904 
trees,  develop  into  a  stand  of  good  form  but  the  final  results  will 
probably  not  be  as  good  as  if  the  stand  were  even-aged  throughout. 
This  plot  may  be  compared  with  Plots  4,  35,  36,  37  and  56  where 
Scotch  pine  was  used  as  a  late  filler. 

Plot  28.  White  pine.  Area  1.6  acres.  Planted  in  the^  spring 
of  1902  with  3  year  seedlings  and  4  year  transplants.  Failures 
were  replaced  1904-5  with  transplants.  A  part  of  this  plot  was 
cultivated  and  fertilized  for  several  seasons  but  no  results  of  this 
treatment  are  apparent.  Spacing  4x5  feet  although  many  trees 
are  only  3  feet  apart  and  often  two  or  more  were  planted  together. 
The  resultant  stand  is  very  dense  and  many  trees  are  dying  from 
lack  of  space.  Average  height,  19  feet;  diameter,  3.5  inches. 
Dead  branches  extend  for  9  feet  above  the  ground  and  are  small 
but  persistent.  Weevil  damage  has  been  slight.  The  stand  shows 
the  effect  of  too  keen  competition  and  should  be  thinned  imme- 
•  diately  in  order  not  to  further  reduce  the  amount  of  living  crown. 
This  plot  does  not  compare  favorably  with  Plots  22,  23  or  24 
where  red  and  Scotch  pine  were  planted  at  the  same  time  and  with 
about  the  same  spacing.  The  stand  should  have  been  thinned  at 
15  years.  All  vegetation  has  been  shaded  out  and  several  inches 
of  needles  cover  the  ground.     (See  note  under  Plot  25.) 


118  CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

In  1920  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off  a 
sample  plot  covering  3^  of  an  acre.  The  results  of  the  counts  and 
measurements  were:  number  of  trees  245  or  1,960  per  acre, 
volume  95.6  cu.  ft.*  of  wood  or  764.8  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  This  sample 
plot  will  be  remeasiu-ed  and  thinned  and  a  check  plot  established 
in  1925. 

Plot  29.  White  pine.  Area  2.3  acres.  Planted  in  the  fall 
of  1907  with  3  year  transplants,  spaced  5x5  feet,  to  test  the 
results  of  fall  planting.  The  experiment  is  a  moderate  success, 
less  than  25%  having  failed.  The  stand  as  a  whole,  however, 
is  quite  ragged  and  uneven  due  to  the  blanks  and  to  the  fact  that 
some  individuals  have  grown  very  slowly.  Weevil  damage  has 
been  qtiite  heavy.  Crowns  have  not  closed  enough  to  kill  the 
lower  branches  and  shade  out  herbaceous  growth.  The  plot  was 
cleared  of  birch  in  1919.  Heights  average  15  feet  and  diameters 
3.5  inches.    For  other  examples  of  fall  planting  see  Plots  7  and  69a. 

Plot  30.  Jack  pine.  Area  .3  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1908  with  seedlings  from  Michigan  1  to  2  feet  high,  spaced  5x5 
feet.  A  50%  failure  resulted  and  the  present  stand  is  rather  open 
and  uneven.  It  has  not  yet  closed  sufficiently  to  kill  the  lower 
branches  or  to  shade  out  herbaceous  cover.  Although  a  few 
individuals  have  done  well,  generally  the  trees  have  crooked  boles 
and  long  side  branches.  Average  height,  16  feet;  diameter,  3 
inches.  In  1910  several  trees  infected  with  Peridermium  cerebrum 
(See  page  106)  were  removed.  This  disease  was  evidently  intro- 
duced with  the  stock  as  no  further  infections  have  been  found. 
This  pine  is  bearing  cones  prolifically  and  many  seedlings  up  to 
12  inches  tall  may  be  found  in  the  openings.  The  plot  should  be 
compared  with  Plot  47  where  Jack  pine  was  used  as  a  late  filler. 

Plot  31.  Scotch  pine.  Area  .3  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1903  with  green  ash  1  year  seedlings,  spaced  10  x  10  feet.  In  the 
spring  of  1904  Scotch  pine  2  year  seedlings  were  planted  5  feet 
apart  in  solid  rows  between  the  ash  rows  and  alternating  with  the 
ash  in  the  rows,  making  the  final  spacing  5x5  feet.  The  ash 
failed  thereby  reducing  the  density  25%  and  this,  plus  a  5%  fail- 
ure in  the  pine,  leaves  the  plot  about  70%  stocked.  The  stand  is 
very  dense  and  has  completely  closed.  Average  height  25  feet; 
diameter  4.8  inches.  Dead  limbs  extend  for  12  feet  above  ground 
and  the  lower  ones,  though  still  persisting  are  quite  rotten.  They 
seem  to  be  a  little  larger  than  on  Plot  23.  From  the  appearance 
of  this  plot  it  would  seem  that  Scotch  pine  may  be  planted  with 
a  much  wider  spacing,  7  x  7  or  8  x  8  feet,  and  still  close  and  prune 
satisfactorily.  The  effect  of  this  would  be  to  delay  the  first 
thinning  until  the  stand  was  30-35  years  old  when  the  operation 


*Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended   to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


PLATE  I 


a^ 


^ 

O 

"o^os 

(U 

'd 

fl 

(D 

a 

'a 

a 

G 

o 

-u 

iH 

,C3 

<D 

& 

> 
O 

t3 

w 

rH 

03 

Clj 

^ 

CD 

(U 

3 

C 

Vh 

'a 

o 

M 

cu 

^ 
H 

z  s^ 


oi 

(U 

■S> 

^ 

_C 

o 
pi 

(-H 

LO 

o 

a 

Ol 

M 

^ 

I— 1 

OJ 

rl 

^ 

•  i-i 

+J 

PLATE  II 


a.     Plot  5.     Japanese  red  pine  planted  in  1910.     Note  the  bushy  habit  of 
this  species  when  grown  in  the  open. 


ma^^i 


b.  Plot  42.  Norway  spruce  and  white  pine  planted  in  1906  under  an 
overwood  which  has  since  been  removed.  The  spruce  is  holding  its  own 
with  the  pine.      Compare  with  Plate  I  b. 


PLATE  III 


a.     Plot  30.     Jack  pine  planted  in  1908. 


b.     Plot  68.     White  pine  planted  in  1905. 


PLATE  IV 


a.      Fire  line  between  Plots  60  and  68  in  1912.     Compare  with  Plate  VII  b. 


b.     Looking  north  across  Plot  23  in  1903,  one  year  after  Scotch  pine  was 
planted.     Note  character  of  ground  cover. 


PLATE  V 


a.     Red  and  Scotch  pine  on  Plots  22  and  23  in  1905. 


b.     Red  and  Scotch  pine  on  Plots  22  and  23  in  1912. 


PLATE  VI 


'. :JaaLi&;'  \  I'Tii  mill'  iMliiiwIiiiili WW*'" 


O 


PLATE  VII 


Ph 


Ph 


c3 
Oh 

a 

O 
O 


fij 


PLATE  VIII 


a.      Plot  6.      Bull  pine  planted  in  1908,  white  pine  in  1913.     Bull  pine  with 
the  axe  leaning  against  it  was  killed  by  the  rust. 


b.      Plot  16.     Red  pine  planted  in  1917. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  119 

would  probably  more  than  pay  for  itself.  The  trees  are  bearing 
cones  prolifically  and  seedlings  up  to  seven  years  old  may  be 
foimd  around  the  edges  of  the  plot.  All  vegetation  has  been 
shaded  out  and  a  carpet  of  needles  several  inches  deep  covers  the 
groimd.     Compare  with  Plot  23. 

Plot  32.  Norway  spruce.  Area  1.5  acres.  Planted  in  the 
spring  of  1905  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet,  under  an 
open  growth  of  pitch  pine  and  hardwoods.  The  ground  had  been 
burned  over  just  before  planting.  A  second  fire  burned  over  a 
portion  of  the  area  in  1907  and  in  1910  blanks  were  filled  with  4 
year  transplants.  In  1911  a  50%  failiire  had  resulted  and  in  1913 
all  blanks  were  filled  with  7  year  transplants  after  removing  a 
part  of  the  overwood.  In  1923  a  fire  burned  over  about  ^  of  the 
plot  near  the  East  Granby  highway.  This  has  not  been  replanted. 
Exclusive  of  the  recent  bum  the  plot  is  now  only  about  50% 
stocked.  The  trees  seem  well  established  but  average  only  4  feet 
in  height  and  show  the  effect  of  too  dense  cover.  With  the  re- 
moval of  the  overwood  the  stand  should  recover  and  increase  in 
height  rapidly  although  it  will  always  be  quite  open.  A  few  trees 
of  another  species,  probably  white  spruce,  occur  near  the  southern 
edge  of  the  plot,  also  an  occasional  balsam  fir.  Many  trees,  both 
of  Norway  and  the  other  spruce,  are  heavily  infested  with  galls. 
(See  page  106.) 

Plot  33.  White  pine.  Area  2.1  acres.  Planted  in  1905  with 
2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet,  under  a  medium  dense  shade 
of  pitch  pine  and  hardwoods.  The  overwood  was  thinned  in 
1913  and  birch  was  lopped  ba<:k  on  the  west  side  in  1923.  The 
white  pine  has  not  made  a  rapid  growth  but  the  plot  is  80% 
stocked  (excluding  a  1923  bum  covering  about  a  half  acre)  and 
the  trees  are  of  good  form  and  have  not  been  damaged  to  any 
extent  by  weevil.  The  white  pines  are  growing  into  the  crowns 
of  the  pitch  pines  and  the  latter  should  be  removed.  Heights 
average  11  feet;  diameters  1.7  inches. 

Plot  34.  Scotch  pine — White  pine — Mountain  pine.  Area  .9 
acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1911  with  4  year  Scotch  pine 
transplants  and  3  year  mountain  pine  seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet. 
About  90%  of  the  latter  failed  and  the  blanks  were  filled  in  the 
spring  of  1913  with  5  year  white  pine  transplants.  About  20%  of 
the  Scotch  and  10%  of  the  white  pine  are  missing.  After  the  fail- 
ure of  the  mountain  pine  the  experiment  resolved  itself  into 
determining  the  value  of  white  pine  as  a  filler  in  an  older  Scotch 
pine  stand.  The  results  are  not  promising.  The  Scotch  pine  has 
made  a  very  rapid  growth  and  has  spread  out  so  that  it  nearly 
closes  over  the  white  pine.  In  fact,  it  is  quite  probable  that  in  a 
few  years  it  will  completely  suppress  the  white  and  form  a  pure 
Scotch  pine  stand  spaced  6  x  12  feet.  This  may  prove  a  desir- 
able density  for  Scotch  pine  as  it  will  delay  the  need  of  thinning. 


120  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN    262. 

The  Scotch  pine  now  averages  11  feet  in  height  and  3.1  inches  in 
diameter,  while  the  white  is  only  6  feet  tall.  The  white  pine  has 
been  weeviled  but  very  little.  As  a  whole  the  stand  has  not 
closed  sufficiently  to  shade  out  herbaceous  growth  or  to  form  a 
litter  of  needles.  Compare  with  Plots  4,  35,  36,  37  and  56  where 
Scotch  pine  was  used  as  a  filler  in  an  older  white  pine  stand. 

Note.  The  mountain  pine  proved  to  be  of  the  Mugho  variety. 
Mugho  pine  when  crowded,  will  abandon  its  prostrate  habit  and 
send  up  a  single  stem.  In  several  cases  it  has  reached  a  height 
of  6  feet  or  more.  It  is  attacked  to  a  slight  extent  by  the  white 
pine  weevil. 

Plot  35.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  2.0  acres.  The 
experiments  started  in  1903  as  an  example  of  mixed  planting  by 
groups.  Two  year  transplants  of  white  pine  and  various  hard- 
woods were  planted  with  a  spacing  of  43^  x  5  feet  and  mixed  by 
grouping  3  to  10  trees  of  each  species  together.  Blanks  in  the  pine 
were  filled  with  3  year  transplants  in  1904.  The  hardwoods  prac- 
tically all  failed  and  in  the  spring  of  1911- were  replaced  with  Scotch 
pine  3  year  transplants.  The  present  stand  is  about  3^  white  and 
%  Scotch  pine  minus  a  few  blanks  caused  by  failures.  The  white 
pine  because  of  its  greater  age  has  made  a  bushy  growth  with  long 
side  branches.  It  averages  15  feet  in  height  and  3.4  inches  in 
diameter.  Weevil  damage  has  been  quite  heavy.  The  Scotch 
pine  has  grown  rapidly  and  has  nearly  caught  up  with  the  white. 
It  averages  13  feet  in  height  and  3.2  inches  in  diameter.  The 
stand  is  just  closing  and  few  trees  show  any  dead  branches.  Her- 
baceous growth  has  been  shaded  out  and  1  to  2  inches  of  needles 
cover  the  ground.  The  Scotch  pine  should  overtake  the  white 
in  a  few  years  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it  will  eventually 
suppress  the  white  or  not.  The  plot  was  thoroughly  cleaned  by 
lopping  birch  and  girdling  pitch  pine  in  1924.  Compare  with 
Plots  4,  34,  36,  37  and  56. 

Plot  36.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1903  with  white  pine  2  year  transplants  and  maple 
seedlings  alternating  in  the  row  and  spaced  6x6  feet.  Pine 
blanks  were  filled  in  1904  with  3  year  transplants.  The  maple 
failed  and  was  replaced  in  1908  with  2  year  Scotch  pine  seedlings. 
The  Scotch  pine  now  averages  18  feet  in  height  and  3.8  inches  in 
diameter  and  the  white,  16  feet  in  height  and  3  inches  in  diameter. 
The  stand  has  just  closed.  All  herbaceous  growth  has  been 
shaded  out  and  1  to  2  inches  of  needles  cover  the  ground.  Scotch 
pine  has  dead  branches  for  a  height  of  5  feet  and  white  pine  for  3 
feet.  The  Scotch  was  probably  used  too  soon  as  a  filler.  It  looks 
now  as  though  it  would  soon  close  over  and  suppress  the  white, 
although  the  latter  may  respond  to  crowding  with  an  increased 
height  growth.    Compare  with  Plots  4,  34,  35,  37  and  56. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  121 

In  1923  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off  a 
sample  plot  covering  ^  acre.  The  results  of  the  counts  and  meas- 
urements were:  number  of  trees — white  pine  162,  Scotch  pine 
125  or  648  and  500  trees  per  acre,  respectively.  Volume — white 
pine  57.4  cu.  ft.  of  wood*,  Scotch  pine  66.8  cu.  ft.  or  229.6 
cu.  ft.  and  267.2  cu.  ft.  per  acre,  respectively.  This  sample  plot 
will  be  remeasured  and  thinned  and  a  check  plot  established  in 
1928. 

Plot  37.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  1.0  acre.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1903  with  white  pine  2  year  transplants  and  maple 
seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet,  solid  rows  of  maple  alternating  with 
a  row  of  maple  and  pine  mixed.  The  maple  was  a  failure  and 
was  replaced  in  1911  with  3  year  transplants  of  Scotch  pine.  Not 
over  10%  of  blanks  now  exist.  The  Scotch  pine  has  surpassed  the 
white  in  diameter  and  in  height.  It  now  averages  16  feet  tall  and 
2.8  inches  in  diameter,  while  the  white  is  12  feet  tall  and  2.2  inches 
in  diameter.  The  Scotch  pine  has  dead  limbs  for  3  feet  above  the 
ground  but  the  white  has  live  limbs  clear  to  the  ground.  The 
stand  has  closed,  shading  out  herbaceous  growth.  About  1  inch  of  , 
litter  covers  the  ground.  The  white  pine  shows  little  weevil 
injury.  Just  why  the  Scotch  pine  is  ahead  of  the  white  on  this  plot 
and  behind  it  on  Plot  35  is  not  apparent  unless  the  grouping  of 
the  white  pine  on  Plot  35  was  more  stimulating  to  height  growth 
than  the  12  x  12  foot  spacing  on  Plot  37.  Compare  with  Plots  4, 
34,  35,  36  and  56. 

Plot  38.  White  pine  and  Douglas  fir.  Area  .4  acre.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1903,  spacing  5x5  feet,  the  two  species  alter- 
nating in  the  rows.  The  pine  has  grown  faster  than  the  fir  and  now 
averages  18  feet  tall  and  4.6  inches  in  diameter,  while  the  fir 
averages  10  feet  tall  and  1.3  inches  in  diameter.  The  early  growth 
of  the  fir  was  very  slow.  This  may  have  been  due  to  the  stock 
not  being  hardy  because  many  trees  have  been  killed  back  and 
deformed.  However,  the  species  seems  to  recover  from  this  and 
to  send  up  a  new  leader  without  any  apparent  deformation  of  the 
stem.  The  fir  has  not  developed  evenly,  individuals  varying  from 
1  to  16  feet  in  height.  Some  of  this  irregularity  has  been  caused 
by  suppression  by  pine.  Fir  produces  a  very  narrow  compact 
crown  while  pine,  when  given  sufficient  room,  produces  a  wide 
crown.  The  result  of  this  is  that  the  stand  has  just  closed  and 
both  species  have  live  limbs  clear  to  the  ground.  The  fir  seems 
quite  tolerant  and  shows  a  considerable  tendency  to  push  through 
the  pine  crowns.  Side  limbs  on  the  pine  were  cut  back  to  favor 
the  fir  in  1923  and  more  of  this  work  will  be  done  in  the  future. 
During  the  last  5  years  the  fir  has  shown  a  greatly  increased  height 


*Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended  to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


122  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

growth  and  may  in  time  catch  up  with  the  pine.  It  has  held  its 
own  with  the  pine  better  than  did  Norway  spruce  planted  under 
about  the  same  conditions  on  Plot  69. 

On  account  of  the  differences  in  crown  habit  it  would  seem 
advisable  either  to  plant  the  fir  about  5  years  before  the  pine  with 
the  same  spacing  or  to  plant  the  two  species  at  the  same  time  with 
a  closer  spacing. 

Plot  39.  White  pine.  Area  .7  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring 
of  1903  with  white  pine  and  hardwoods,  the  latter  forming  75% 
of  the  mixture.  The  spacing  was  originally  5x5  feet  but  the  hard- 
woods have  failed  and  the  pine  is  now  spaced  10  x  10  feet.  The 
results  of  this  wide  spacing  are  not  entirely  satisfactory.  The 
pine  shows  a  50%  injury  by  weevil.  The  stand  is  just  closing, 
the  side  branches  are  large  and  long  and  have  died  for  only  a  few 
feet  above  ground.  Heights  average  17  feet  and  diameter,  4.6 
inches.  All  birch  was  removed  from  the  plot  in  1924.  It  is  some- 
what difficult  to  predict  what  the  final  results  will  be  but  it  looks 
as  if  these  short,  large  boled  trees  would  produce  a  heavy  yield 
of  inferior  limiber.  A  thinning  will  not  be  needed  for  at  least 
another  10  years.  Compare  with  Plots  4  and  59  for  other  examples 
of  wide  spacing  and  with  Plot  28  for  close  spacing. 

Plot  40.  Red  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1924  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  8x8  feet,  under  a  dense  cover 
made  up  of  grey  birch  and  scattered  trees  from  a  red  oak  experi- 
ment which  was  a  failure  because  rodents  kept  the  trees  cut  back. 
At  the  end  of  the  first  growing  season  less  than  10%  of  the  red  pines 
had  failed.  The  plan  is  to  remove  all  hardwood  cover  for  cord- 
wood  after  about  5  years. 

Plot  41.  White  pine  and  Norway  spruce.  Area  .2  acre. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1906  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x6 
feet,  under  light  brush,  the  species  alternating  by  rows.  Fifty 
per  cent  of  the  pine  and  20%  of  the  spruce  failed.  The  birch 
cover  was  thinned  in  1919  and  completely  removed  in  1924. 
Both  the  pine  and  the  spruce  have  been  badly  weevil ed,  prob- 
ably because  the  plot  is  very  narrow  and  open  to  a  road  on  one 
side.  The  spruce  is  also  attacked  by  galls.  The  two  species  average 
about  the  same  in  height,  12  feet,  but  the  pine  averages  3.5  inches 
in  diameter  and  the  spruce  only  1  inch.  Spruce  has  shown  a 
greatly  increased  height  growth  in  the  last  5  years.  Neither 
species  shows  dead  limbs  and  in  general  the  plot  is  quite  ragged 
and  has  not  closed.  It  may  be  compared  with  Plot  69  where  these 
two  species  were  planted  in  the  open  and  the  pine  suppressed 
practically  all  the  spruce. 

Plot  42.  White  pine  and  Norway  spruce.  Area  2.6  acres. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1906  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x6 
feet,  the  two  species  alternating  by  rows.     Blanks  were  filled  in 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  123 

1911  with  5  year  white  pine  transplants.  At  the  time  of  planting 
an  overwood  of  pitch  pine. and  hardwoods,  which  varied  in  density 
from  heavy  on  the  south  end  to  very  open  on  the  north  end,  covered 
the  area.  One  acre  in  the  densest  portion  of  the  overwood  at  the 
south  end  was  cleared  in  1911.  In  1919,  hardwood  sprouts  from  the 
cutting  in  1911,  which  has  overtopped  the  planted  trees,  were 
thinned  to  give  the  conifers  more  light.  The  plot  is  now  about 
75%  stocked  and  is  rather  uneven.  The  pine  averages  15  feet 
in  height  and  2  inches  in  diameter  and  the  spruce  11  feet  in  height 
and  1  inch  in  diameter.  Neither  species  show  dead  branches  for 
over  2  feet  above  ground.  Both  have  been  heavily  damaged  by 
weevil  but  the  spruce  is  less  deformed  by  the  injury  than  the  pine. 
The  spruce  is  also  heavily  infested  with  galls.  The  effect  of  the 
cover  has  been  to  hold  back  the  pine  more  than  the  spruce  allow- 
ing the  latter  to  hold  its  own  with  the  pine.  During  the  last  few 
years  the  spruce  has  increased  height  growth  enormously.  Com- 
parison may  be  made  with  Plot  69  where  these  two  species  were 
planted  in  the  open. 

Plot  43.  White  pine  and  Norway  spruce.  Area  4.2  acres. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1905  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x6 
feet,  the  two  species  alternating  by  rows,  Blanks  were  filled  with 
5  year  white  pine  transplants  in  1911.  A  medium  dense  overwood, 
chiefly  pitch  pine,  covered  the  entire  plot.  This  was  removed  from 
the  south  end  in  1923.  Both  species  have  grown  more  slowly 
than  on  Plot  42  on  which  the  cover  was  removed  at  an  earlier  date. 
The  pine  averages  10  feet  tall  and  the  spruce  6  feet.  However, 
weevil  damage  has  been  very  slight  for  both  species  and  while  the 
trees  are  not  as  large  as  on  Plot  42  they  are  of  much  better  form. 
Compare  with  Plot  69. 

Plot  44.  White  pine.  Areas  3.1  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring 
of  1906  with  white  pine  2  year  seedlings,  pure  on  the  west  side 
and  mixed  with  maple  on  the  east  side.  Spacing  6x5  feet.  The 
maple  failed  and  blanks  were  filled  in  1910  with  4  year  white 
pine  transplants.  Failures  were  filled  again  in  1911  with  5  year 
white  pine  transplants.  An  overwood  of  pitch  pine  and  grey 
birch,  varying  in  density  from  nothing  at  the  south  end  to  moder- 
ately dense  in  the  middle  and  on  the  north  end,  covers  the  area. 
Over  80%  of  the  trees  are  present.  In  the  open  they  average 
14  feet  tall  and  4.5  inches  in  diameter  and  under  the  overwood, 
10  feet  tall  and  one  inch  in  diameter.  Only  in  a  iew  places  has  the 
stand  closed  and  live  limbs  extend  to  the  ground.  Herbaceous 
growth  has  not  been  shaded  out.  A  little  spruce  occurs  at  the 
north  end,  evidently  an  extension  of  Plot  43.  The  most  marked 
feature  is  the  almost  entire  absence  of  weevil  injury  and  the  small- 
ness  of  side  branches  on  the  portion  of  the  plot  under  the  over- 
wood.  A  cover  of  pitch  pine  is  less  harmful  than  is  grey  birch 
because  its  branches  are  stiff  and  therefore  do  not  whip  the  white 


124  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262, 

pine  tops  as  badly  as  do  those  of  the  birch.    Several  barren  areas 
(see  page  104)  occur  on  Plot  44. 

Plot  45.  Mountain  pine.  Area  4.6  acres.  Planted  in  the 
spring  of  1912  with  mountain  pine,  spaced  6x6  feet.  The  stock 
proved  to  be  the  Mugho  variety  of  mountain  pine  and  has  been 
sold  for  ornamental  purposes  (See  note  on  Mugho  pine  under 
Plot  34).  A  few  Corsican  pines  from  a  planting  which  was  made 
in  1910  and  which  was  almost  a  complete  failure,  are  scattered 
over  the  plot.  They  have  made  fair  growth  but  are  open  grown 
and  bushy.  Barren  areas  (see  page  104)  similar  to  those  in  Plot 
44  occur  in  Plot  45. 

Plot  46.  White  pine — Norway  spruce — Jack  pine.  Area  .7 
acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1906  with  2  year  seedlings  of  white 
pine  and  spruce,  spaced  5x6  feet,  and  alternated  by  rows.  In 
1908  fail  places  were  filled  with  Jack  pine.  The  composition  of 
the  plot  is  now  50%  Jack  pine,  25%  white  pine  and  25%  spruce. 
Jack  pine  has  grown  faster  than  the  other  two  species  averaging 
21  feet  in  height  and  4  inches  in  diameter.  The  white  pine  aver- 
ages 18  feet  high  and  4.5  inches  in  diameter  and  the  spruce,  10 
feet  high  and  1.5  inches  in  diameter.  Both  spruce  and  white 
pine  show  a  small  amount  of  damage  by  weevil  and  the  former 
is  often  infested  with  galls.  The  stand  is  almost  entirely  closed 
but  there  is  only  a  small  amount  of  litter.  Jack  pine  has  dead 
branches  extending  for  8  feet  above  ground,  and  white  pine  for  5 
feet.  Spruce  has  no  dead  branches.  For  the  first  ten  years  the 
spruce  grew  quite  slowly  but  since  that  time,  except  where  it 
was  heavily  shaded,  it  has  increased  its  height  growth 
enormously,  often  making  2-3  feet  a  year.  Under  stiff  com- 
petition Jack  pine  develops  well,  forming  a  straight  bole  and 
small  side  branches  which  die  early.  This  plot  demonstrates  its 
value  as  a  late  filler,  for  which  it  compares  favorably  with  Scotch 
pine.  About  2  cOrds  of  birch  were  removed  from  the  plot  in  1919 
and  a  final  release  cutting  was  made  in  1924.  Spruce  trees  com- 
pletely covered  by  pine  will  be  sold  as  Christmas  trees.  This 
plan  will  also  be  followed  on  Plots  42  and  43.  Compare  Jack 
pine  on  this  plot  with  that  on  Plots  30  and  47  where  this  tree 
grew  more  or  less  in  open  stands.  Compare  the  white  pine  and 
spruce  with  that  on  Plots  41,  42,  43  and  69. 

Plot  47.  Douglas  fir — Jack  pine — Norway  spruce.  Area  .9 
acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1903  with  Douglas  fir  and  several 
hardwoods  mixed  at  random  and  spaced  5x5  feet.  Practically 
all  the  hardwoods  failed  and  blanks  were  filled  in  1908  with  Jack 
pine.  The  fir  is  all  on  the  east  side  of  the  plot  and  with  the  Jack 
pine  and  some  spruce  planted  at  a  latter  date  forms  a  fairly  good 
stand.  The  west  side  contains  a  scattering  of  Jack  pine  and  a 
volunteer  growth  of  birch  and  other  hardwoods.     Some  chestnut 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  125 

from  the  early  hardwood  experiment  still  persists  but  is  kept 
killed  back  by  the  blight.  The  west  side  should  be  used  for  another 
experiment.  The  fir  has  developed  in  all  respects  about  as  it  did 
on  Plot  38.  The  spruce,  being  much  younger,  is  mostly  over- 
topped. Jack  pine  has  developed  much  as  it  did  on  Plot  30  where 
it  was  open  grown,  i.e.,  it  produced  long  side  branches  and  crooked 
boles.  It  is  bearing  cones  prolifically  and  numerous  seedlings 
up  to  7  feet  tall  may  be  found  in  the  openings.  The  stand  on 
the  west  side  has  not  closed  sufficiently  to  shade  out  herbaceous 
growth  and  there  is  almost  no  needle  litter. 

Plot  48.  Red  oak  and  White  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1904  with  oak  1  year  seedlings  and  pine  2  year 
seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet,  4  rows  of  oak  alternating  with  2  rows 
of  pine.  Eighty-five  per  cent  of  the  oak  and  70%  of  the  pine  are 
living  but  50%  of  the  oak  have  been  kept  cut  back  by  rodents. 
These  trees  were  excluded  in  the  measurements.  Oaks  not  attacked 
by  rodents  have  done  better  than  the  pines  and  are  crowding  the 
latter  severely.  Oak  averages  20  feet  in  height  and  2  inches  in 
diameter  and  pine  averages  18  feet  in  height  and  4  inches  in  diame- 
ter. The  best  oak  on  the  tract  is  to  be  found  on  this  plot.  About 
half  the  pines  have  been  injured  by  weevil  and  are  of  poor  form. 
The  thrifty  oaks  have  dead  branches  for  a  height  of  10  feet,  but 
dead  branches  on  the  pine  do  not  extend  over  2  feet  above  the 
ground.  Most  of  the  pine  limbs  are  small.  The  stand,  as  a  whole, 
has  closed  and  most  of  the  herbaceous  growth,  except  brake  ferns, 
has  been  shaded  out.  There  is  very  little  litter  on  the  ground. 
Considerable  birch  in  the  mixture  helps  to  make  the  canopy 
quite  dense.  This  plot  is  in  need  of  thinning  to  give  the  better 
oak  and  pine  a  chance.    Compare  with  Plots  4  and  51 . 

Plot  49.  Pitch  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1903 
with  2  year  transplants,  spaced  5x5  feet.  Over  90%  of  the  original 
trees  are  still  living  (except  on  thinned  sample  plot  described 
below)  but  the  stand  is  not  thrifty.  Average  height,  15  feet; 
diameter,  3  inches. 

In  1921  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off 'and 
measured  two  sample  plots  of  Ke  acre  each  and  thinned  one  of 
them.  The  results  of  the  counts  and  measurements  for  the 
unthinned  plot  were — number  of  trees,  131  or  at  the  rate  of  2,096 
per  acre;  volume,  26  cu.  ft.*  of  wood  or  416  cu.  ft.  per  acre:  for 
the  thinned  plot — number  of  trees  before  thinning,  130  or  2,080 
per  acre;  after  thinning,  78  or  1,248  per  acre:  volume  before 
thinning,  29.4  cu.  ft.  or  470.4  cu.  ft.  per  acre;  after  thinning,  20.5 
cu.  ft.  or  328  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  These  sample  plots  will  be  remeasured 
and  the  thinned  plot  thinned  again  in  1926. 


♦Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  vS.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended  to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


126  CONNECTICUT   EXPERIMENT   STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

The  unthinned  pitch  pine  on  Plot  49  has  apparently  stagnated 
although  the  stand  does  not  seem  at  all  dense.  Live  crowns  have 
been  reduced  to  J^  the  total  height  of  the  tree.  Pitch  pine  seems 
fairly  tolerant  of  shade  of  older  pitch  pine  but  it  does  not  seem 
able  to  stand  side  crowding.  On  this  plot  all  trees  had  an  equal 
amount  of  growing  space  and  have  developed  about  equally  with 
no  marked  differentiation  into  crown  classes.  On  the  south  half 
of  Plot  3  this  species  has  grown  under  quite  different  conditions, 
more  nearly  approximating  those  in  nature.  The  number  of 
seedlings  that  started  was  very  large  and  competition  during  the 
earlier  years  quite  keen.  The  stronger  individuals  developed 
rapidly,  suppressing  the  weaker  trees,  thereby  obtaining  more 
room  for  the  development  of  their  crowns. 

On  the  sample  plot  thinned  in  1921,  crowns  are  deeper  and  the 
trees  are  generally  healthier  than  on  the  remainder  of  the  area. 
Compare  Plot  49  with  Plots  3,  22,  23  and  28. 

Plot  50.  Red  oak.  Area  .9  acre.  Originally  an  experiment 
with  red  oak  but  rodents  kept  the  trees  cut  back  so  badly  that  the 
result  is  almost  a  total  failure.  An  occasional  individual  has  not 
been  attacked  and  has  made  good  growth  but  these  are  so  scattering 
as  to  be  worthless  as  a  test  of  this  species.  A  volunteer  stand  of 
birch  and  pitch  pine  has  taken  possession  of  the  plot. 

Plot  51.  Red  oak  and  White  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted  in 
the  spring  of  1904  with  oak  1  year  seedlings  and  pine  2  year  seed- 
lings, spaced  6x6  feet,  two  rows  of  oak  alternating  with  one  row  of 
pine.  Practically  all  the  oak  are  present  but  ^  of  them  have  been 
cut  back  by  rodents.  Those  not  cut  back  are  ahead  of  the  pine 
but  are  so  scattering  as  to  make  the  pine  appear  to  be  spaced 
6  X  18  feet.  The  thrifty  oak  averages  19  feet  in  height  and  2  inches 
in  diameter,  and  the  pine  17  feet  in  height  and  5  inches  in  diameter. 
About  20%  of  the  pine  failed.  Those  living  have  been  badly 
weeviled  and  are  of  poor  form.  They  have  closed  in  the  rows  but 
not  between  them.  Herbaceous  vegetation  has  not  been  killed 
out  except  directly  under  the  pine  and  there  is  little  litter  on  the 
grormd.     Compare  with  Plots  4  and  48. 

Plot  52.  White  pine  and  Japanese  red  pine.  Area  .9  acre. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1910  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet, 
the  two  species  alternating  by  rows.  Loss  in  the  Japanese  red  pine 
was  heavy  and  blanks  were  filled  about  1914  with  white  pine.  The 
present  stand  is  fully  stocked  and  is  25%  Japanese  red  and  75% 
white  pine.  Both  species  average  7  feet  in  height.  Both  have 
been  weeviled,  the  white  the  more  heavily  than  the  other.  The 
plot  was  thoroughly  cleaned  of  birch  in  1923.  Crowns  are  just 
commencing  to  close,  much  herbaceous  cover  is  still  present  and 
there  is  no  litter  on  the  ground.  This  plot  is  similar  to  Plot  5 
and  has  received  practically  the  same  treatment  except  that  the 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  127 

leaders  on  the  Japanese  red  pine  have  not  been  pruned  back  but 
left  for  comparison  with  Plot  5.  Comparison  may  also  be  made 
with  Plot  19. 

Plot  53.  White  pine.  Area  .2  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1905  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet.  Blanks  were  filled  in 
1910  with  three  year  transplants.  All  birch  was  removed  by 
lopping  in  1923.  Several  large  pitch  pine  and  clumps  of  birch  held 
back  or  killed  the  white  pine  on  part  of  the  plot  so  that  the  stand 
is  rather  irregular  and  only  about  half  the  original  number  of  trees 
is  present.  Dead  branches  extend  for  4  feet  above  ground  but 
are  firm.  Crowns  have  closed,  resulting  in  a  forest  floor  without 
vegetation  and  covered  with  2  to  3  inches  of  needles.  Fifty  per 
cent  of  the  trees  have  been  damaged  by  weevil.  Average  height, 
13  feet;   diameter,  3.3  inches. 

Plot  54.  White  pine  and  Japanese  black  pine.  Area  .9  acre. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1910  with  3  year  seedlings  of  white  pine 
and  2  year  seedlings  of  Japanese  black  pine,  spaced  6x6  feet,  and 
alternating  by  rows.  The  Japanese  species  was  apparently  not 
hardy  and  90%  of  it  failed.  Those  living  are  only  2  feet  tall  and 
tend  to  have  a  prostrate  habit.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  white 
pine  failed  also  so  that  the  stand  is  only  40%  stocked.  The  white 
pine  has  been  heavily  weeviled  and  is  bushy  and  of  poor  form.  It 
averages  7  feet  in  height.  The  plot  was  cleared  of  birch  in  1923. 
Pitch  pine  is  scattered  over  the  plot  but  is  not  sufficiently  dense  to 
stimulate  the  white  pine. 

Plot  55.  White  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1903  with  2  year  seedlings  from  Maine,  alternating  in  the  rows 
with  beech,  spacing  6x6  feet.  The  beech  failed  and  the  experiment 
has  become  one  of  pure  pine  with  a  spacing  of  8}^  x  83^  feet.  The 
stand  is  complete  and  is  just  closing.  Lower  limbs  are  just  begin- 
ning to  die  and  ground  vegetation  is  almost  completely  shaded  out. 
Average  height,  17  feet;  diameter,  4.5  inches.  Fifty  per  cent  of 
the  trees  have  been  injured  by  weevil.  Diameter  growth  has  been 
consistently  large  over  the  whole  plot  and  the  stand  is  thrifty, 
and  in  good  condition  except  for  weevil  damage. 

Plot  56.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1903  with  white  pine  2  year  seedlings  and  beech, 
spaced  6x6  feet,  a  solid  row  of  beech  alternating  with  a  row  of 
beech  and  pine  mixed.  In  1911  the  beech  was  replaced  with 
Scotch  pine  3  year  transplants.  The  white  pine  has  made  a  large 
diameter  growth  averaging  4.5  inches,  but  a  poor  height  growth, 
averaging  only  17  feet.  The  Scotch  pine,  although  8  years  younger, 
averages  16  feet  in  height  and  3  inches  in  diameter.  The  mixture 
contains  about  80%  Scotch  and  20%  white  pine.  The  stand  has 
just  closed  and  dead  branches  extend  for  4  feet  above  ground. 
They  are  large  and  heavy  on  the  white  pine  but  short  and  slender 


128  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

on  the  Scotch.  Half  the  white  pine  has  been  damaged  by  weevil. 
Practically  all  ground  cover  has  been  shaded  out  and  2  to  3  inches 
of  needles  cover  the  ground.  Compare  with  Plots  4,  34,  35,  36 
and  37. 

Plot  57.  Red  pine.  Area  .9  acre.  Cleared  of  a  scattered  stand 
of  large  grey  birches  in  the  fall  .of  1923  and  planted  in  the  spring 
of  1924  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  8x8  feet.  At  the  end  of  the 
first  growing  season  less  than  10%  had  failed.  Compare  with 
Plot  40  for  a  plantation  of  red  pine  made  at  the  same  time  under 
heavy  cover. 

Plot  58.  Black  locust.  Area  1.0  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1903  with  1  year  seedlings  with  various  spacings.  As  far  as  growth 
is  concerned  this  species  has  done  better  than  any  other  used  in 
the  plantations,  attaining  a  height  of  35  feet  and  a  diameter  of  6 
to  7  inches  and  reproducing  itself  prolifically.  However,  damage 
from  the  locust  borer  (See  page  105)  was  so  great  that  in  the  fall  of 
1923  the  stand  was  removed  for  cordwood  and  the  experiment 
abandoned.  During  the  last  growing  season,  sprouts  have  reached 
a  height  of  10  feet. 

Plot  59.  White  pine.  Area  1.0  acre.  Planted  partly  in  the 
spring  of  1903  with  white  pine  2  year  seedlings  and  partly  in  1904 
with  white  pine  3  year  transplants  alternating  in  the  row  with 
black  birch  and  spaced  5x5  feet.  A  small  portion  of  the  plot  was 
pure  pine.  The  birch  failed  leaving  the  pine  spaced  about  7x7 
feet  on  the  average,  although  the  spacing  is  somewhat  irregular. 
Heights  average  25  feet;  diameters,  6  inches.  Dead  branches 
extend  for  10  feet  above  ground  and  are  moderately  large  and 
quite  firm.  Weevils  have  caused  many  crooked  boles  but  in  spite 
of  this  a  good  height  growth  has  been  maintained  and  the  stand 
appears  in  good  condition.  Practically  all  herbaceous  vegetation 
has  been  shaded  out  and  2  to  3  inches  of  needles  cover  the  ground. 
This  plot  may  be  compared  with  Plot  39  for  white  pine  with  a 
wider  spacing  and  with  Plot  28  for  a  closer  spacing. 

In  1922  students  from  the  Yale  School  of  Forestry  laid  off  two 
sample  plots  of  34  acre  each.  One  of  these  was  thinned  and  the 
other  left  as  a  check.  Measurements  and  counts  were  as  follows : 
check  plot,  number  of  trees,  187  or  at  the  rate  of  748  per  acre; 
volume,  219.1  cu.  ft.*  of  wood  or  876.4  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  Thinned 
plot,  number  of  trees  before  thinning,  216  or  864  per  acre;  after 
thinning,  158  trees  or  632  per  acre:  volume  before  thinning,  249.9 
cu.  ft.  of  wood  or  999.6  cu.  ft.  per  acre;  after  thinning  208.0  cu. 
ft.  or  832  cu.  ft.  per  acre.  Both  plots  will  be  remeasured  and  the 
thinned  plot  will  be  thinned  again  in  1927. 


♦Volumes  computed  from  Table  27,  Bulletin  13,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  revised 
and  extended  to  cover  the  sizes  of  trees  found  on  this  plot. 


DESCRIPTION    OF    PLOTS  129 

Plot  60.  White  pine.  Area  2. 1  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1905,  together  with  Plot  68,  with  2  year  seedlings,  3  year  trans- 
plants and  wild  seedlings  from  Stafford.  Spacing  was  5x5  and  6x6 
feet,  and  trees  were  set  in  old  furrows  and  on  mounds  between. 
Both  plots  are  the  same  in  all  respects  and  are  described  together. 
Both  are  in  excellent  condition.  Trees  average  20  feet  in  height 
and  4  inches  in  diameter.  Weevil  damage  has  been  comparatively 
slight  and  little  damage  seems  to  have  been  done  until  the  trees 
were  12  feet  or  more  in  height.  Dead  branches  extend  for  10  feet 
above  ground  and  are  small  but  quite  firm.  Herbaceous  vegetation 
has  been  shaded  out  and  several  inches  of  needles  cover  the  ground. 
Competition  has  not  been  too  keen  but  a  thinning  is  needed  to 
prevent  the  stand  becoming  stagnated.  These  two  plots  contain 
the  best  growth  of  white  pine  on  the  tract. 

Plot  61.  White  pine.  Area  2.2  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring  of 
1913  with  5  year  transplants,  spaced  5x6  feet.  A  few  clumps  of 
chestnut  sprouts  still  persist  from  a  previous  experiment.  A  mod- 
erately dense  stand  of  grey  birch  covered  the  pine  until  1923  when 
it  was  entirely  removed  by  lopping.  This  cover  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  sufficiently  dense  to  protect  the  pine  from  weevil  as 
30  to  40%  of  the  trees  have  been  damaged.  Practically  the  entire 
planting  survives.  The  stand  has  not  yet  closed,  and  bunch  grass 
and  other  herbaceous  growth  still  persists.  The  pine  averages  9 
feet  in  height  and,  in  competition  with  birch  sprouts  that  have 
come  up  since  the  cutting  in  1923,  should  make  a  good  height 
growth  and  produce  only  small  side  branches. 

Plot  62.  White  pine  and  Scotch  pine.  Area  5.1  acres.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1907  with  2  year  seedlings  of  white  pine,  spaced 
5x5  feet.  In  1922  a  fire  destroyed  about  50%  of  the  plot  facing 
Plots  61-64  (measurements  and  counts  exclude  this  burn).  The 
stand  has  just  closed  and  some  herbaceous  cover  still  persists. 
Plot  was  cleaned  of  birch  in  1919.  Weevil  damage  has  been  quite 
heavy  averaging  35%.    Average  height,  17  feet;  diameter,  3  inches. 

The  burn  was  replanted  in  the  spring  of  1924  with  white  and 
Scotch  pine  2  year  seedlings.  The  season  was  dry,  the  fire  had 
reduced  the  tract  to  a  barren  sand  plain,  the  stock  was  small  and 
a  very  heavy  loss  resulted  during  the  first  growing  season. 

Plot  63.  Red  pine  and  White  pine.  Area  2.6  acres.  Planted  in 
1917.  The  species  were  planted  alternately  6  feet  apart,  in  rows 
10  feet  apart  with  the  idea  that  at  some  later  date  Scotch  pine  or 
some  other  species  would  be  used  as  a  late  filler.  This  has  not  yet 
been  done.  The  plot  was  cleaned  of  a  heavy  cover  of  birch  in  the 
spring  of  1923.  About  95%  of  the  original  trees  are  living.  The 
red  pine  appears  more  thrifty  and  of  better  form  than  the  white 
because  the  latter  has  been  severely  injured  by  weevil.  Both 
species  average  5.5  feet  tall.  The  stand  is  just  closing  in  the  rows 
but  not  between. 


130  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT   STATION  BULLETIN   262. 

Plot  64.  Scotch  pine.  Area,  1.3  acres.  Planted  in  the  spring 
of  1910  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet.  Subsequent  loss 
has  been  rather  heavy,  due  partly  to  failures  at  the  time  of  planting 
and  partly  to  suppression  by  birch.  The  birch  was  thinned  in  1923 
and  completely  removed  by  lopping  in  1924.  A  number  of  medium 
sized  pitch  pines  were  girdled  in  1924.  This  should  be  the  final 
release  cutting  as  the  Scotch  pine  can  probably  take  care  of  itself 
from  now  on.  The  stand  is  just  closing  but  is  rather  ragged. 
Trees  average  15  feet  in  height  and  2.5  inches  in  diameter,  and 
have  dead  branches  for  3  feet  above  ground.  Herbaceous  cover 
still  persists  and  there  is  little  litter  on  the  ground.  The  extreme 
intolerance  of  Scotch  pine  and  the  effect  of  cover  on  this  species  are 
well  illustrated. 

Plot  65.  Red  pine.  Area  .8  acre.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1917 
with  red  pine,  spaced  5x5  feet.  There  were  practically  no  failures 
and  the  stand  is  quite  thrifty  except  on  a  few  sterile  spots  (described 
under  Plot  16).  A  small  fire  in  1922  destroyed  about  75  trees  near 
Plot  66.  A  heavy  birch  cover  was  removed  in  1923  but  the  red 
pine  does  not  seem  to  have  been  held  back  to  any  extent  by  its 
shade.  A  few  meditim  sized  pitch  pines  were  girdled  in  the  fall  of 
1924,  thus  removing  the  last  of  the  cover  from  the  red  pine. 

Plot  66.  Western  yellow  (bull)  pine.  Area  1.5  acres.  Planted 
in  the  spring  of  1908  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5  feet.  This 
plot  is  similar  in  all  respect  to  Plot  6  except  that  the  blanks,  which 
amount  to  about  45%,  have  not  been  filled.  The  trees  average 
11  feet  tall,  somewhat  larger  than  on  Plot  6  but  in  general  develop- 
ment has  been  similar  to  that  on  Plot  6.  Bull  pine  seems  to  be  quite 
intolerant.  Individuals  growing  in  the  shade  are  stunted  and, 
even  when  growing  in  the  open,  the  lower  branches  die  from  the 
shade  of  those  above.  A  ground  fire  burned  over  a  small  area  in 
this  plot  in  1922  killing  the  bull  pine  completely.  This  species 
appears  to  be  at  least  as  susceptible  to  injury  by  ground  fires  as 
red  pine. 

Plot  67.    Native  pitch  pine.    Area  .1  acre.    No  treatment. 

Plot  68.    White  pine.    Area  4.3  acres.     (See  Plot  60.) 

Plot  69.  White  pine  and  Norway  spruce.  Area  3.6  acres. 
Planted  in  the  spring  of  1905  with  2  year  seedlings,  spaced  5x5 
feet,  the  two  species  alternating  in  the  row.  Ninety  per  cent  of 
the  pine  and  60%  of  the  spruce  lived  but  the  pine  has  grown  much 
the  faster  of  the  two  and  has  overtopped  about  90%  of  the  spruce 
completely,  making  the  plot  in  effect  one  of  pure  pine  with  a  spac- 
ing of  about  7x7  feet  over  an  understory  of  spruce.  In  a  few 
instances  the  spruce  has  grown  rapidly  and  will  probably  catch 
up  to  the  pine.  The  latter  has  long,  heavy  side  branches  which 
have  died  for  8  feet  above  ground  but  still  persist.    Weevils  have 


CONCLUSIONS  131 

injured  about  30%  of  the  pines.  Average  sizes:  pine,  22  feet  tall 
and  4.5  inches  in  diameter;  spruce,  5  feet  tall.  Overtopped  spruce 
trees  are  being  removed  and  sold  for  Christmas  trees  as  fast  as  a 
market  can  be  found  for  them.  This  plot  demonstrates  the  fact 
that  it  is  not  feasible  to  plant  spruce  and  pine  in  the  open  at  the 
same  time,  as  the  pine  grows  much  faster  and  completely  over- 
tops the  spruce.  Compare  with  Plots  41,  42  and  43  where  an  over- 
wood  has  held  back  the  pine  more  than  the  spruce,  enabling  the 
latter  to  hold  its  own  with  the  pine.  In  1913  a  fire  burned  over 
about  an  acre  in  Plot  69  along  the  East  Granby  highway  (See 
Plot  69a). 

Plot  69a.  Red  pine.  Area  about  1.0  acre.  Planted  in  the 
fall  of  1920  with  3  year  transplants,  spaced  6x6  feet,  under  a 
scattering  cover  of  grey  birch  as  a  test  of  fall  planting.  The 
experiment  was  a  complete  success.  Ninety-five  per  cent  of  the 
trees  are  still  living  and  the  average  height  is  23^  feet.  A  few 
spruce  and  pine  from  the  1905  planting  are  scattered  over  the  plot. 
All  hardwood  growth  was  removed  by  lopping  in  the  fall  of  1924. 

Plot  70.  Austrian  pine.  Planted  in  the  spring  of  1908  with  2 
year  seedlings,  spaced  6x6  feet.  The  trees  suffered  heavily  from 
drought  and  winter  injury  and  at  present  less  than  25%  of  the 
original  planting  is  present.  Heights  vary  from  2  to  10  feet  and 
average  about  3  feet.  Most  of  the  trees  have  crooked  boles  and. 
in  general,  appear  sickly  and  show  poor  development.  The  plot 
was  thoroughly  cleaned  by  lopping  back  the  hardwoods  in  1923. 

Conclusions. 

Seeding  versus  planting.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  experi- 
ments in  regeneration  by  seeding  were  not  successful.  The  seed 
of  many  species,  both  coniferous  and  hardwood,  were  sown  b}^ 
various  methods  but  results  were  so  poor  that  regeneration  by 
seeding  was  soon  abandoned.  Even  during  the  most  favorable 
seasons  the  moistiu-e  conditions  in  the  surface  soil  are  very  poor 
and  it  is  often  several  years  before  any  vegetation  appears  on  land 
abandoned  for  cultivation.  Grey  birch,  which  usually  reproduces 
quite  prolifically  on  bare  soil,  does  not  come  in  readily  on  bare 
areas  in  this  region.  Planting,  on  the  other  hand  has  been  quite 
successful.  When  this  method  has  failed,  the  cause  can  usually 
be  traced  to  using  unsuitable  species  or  to  some  other  reason. 

Hardwoods  versus  conifers.  Of  the  many  experiments  with 
hardwood  species,  only  three  were  successful  enough  to  warrant 
comment.  Red  oak,  black  locust  and  chestnut  seemed  to  thrive 
on  poor  soil  when  not  attacked  by  enemies.  Unfortunately  all 
three  species  have  been  subject  to  animal,  insect  or  fungous 
injury  and  are  almost  complete  failures.  The  other  hardwoods 
used  have  either  died  out  completely  or  are  represented  by  a  few 


132  CONNECTICUT    EXPERIMENT    STATION  BULLETIN    262. 

stunted  specimens.  The  conifers,  on  the  other  hand,  have  done 
well.  Some  have  done  better  than  others  but  only  in  one  or  two 
cases  can  an  experiment  with  conifers  be  called  a  complete  failure. 
From  this  it  is  apparent  that  the  tract  is  far  better  suited  to  con- 
iferous than  to  hardwood  growth,  mainly  because  the  former  are 
far  less  exacting  in  their  moisture  requirements  than  the  latter. 

Conifers.  Three  species  stand  out  conspicuously  above  all  others 
used.  They  are  red,  white  and  Scotch  pine.  Of  these  Scotch  pine 
has  grown  the  fastest  during  the  juvenile  period,  i.e.,  the  first  20 
years.  However,  it  is  an  European  species  and  has  not  been 
brought  to  maturity  in  this  country  as  a  timber  tree.  There  is, 
therefore,  some  uncertainty  as  to  just  how  it  will  develop  between 
the  twentieth  year  and  the  time  it  is  ready  to  cut.  Should  later 
development  prove  satisfactory,  its  value  for  planting  on  poor 
soils  in  this  country  may  be  very  great  on  account  of  its  rapid 
growth.  Its  worst  fault  seems  to  be  a  tendency  to  form  crooked 
boles.  One  of  the  greatest  values  is  as  a  filler  in  older  plantations 
of  other  species  where  failures  have  occurred.  The  wood  is  some- 
what similar  to  that  of  red  pine  and  is  a  little  harder  and  heavier 
than  that  of  white  pine. 

The  growth  of  red  and  white  pine  is  about  the  same.  White 
pine  is  a  well-known  species  and  its  wood  is  very  valuable,  more 
so  than  that  of  red  pine,  although,  where  they  grow  naturally 
together,  both  species  are  marketed  as  white  pine.  Red  pine  has 
no  serious  enemies.  Its  form  is  normally  very  good  and  it  prunes 
itself  better  than  white  pine  under  the  same  conditions.  The 
latter  has  several  enemies,  the  worst  of  which  in  this  region  is  the 
weevil.  This  insect  causes  a  large  percentage  of  the  trees  to  form 
crooked  boles  which  yield  inferior  lumber.  For  these  reasons 
the  red  pine  is  considered  the  better  of  the  two  species. 

Norway  spruce,  another  European  species,  has  done  very  well 
when  planted  under  shade  sufficiently  dense  to  act  as  a  nurse  but 
not  heavy  enough  to  suppress  the  trees.  As  in  the  case  of  Scotch 
pine,  there  are  no  stands  old  enough  to  furnish  data  on  what  its 
later  development  will  be. 

Jack  pine,  which  grows  naturally  on  very  poor  soil  in  the  Lake 
States,  has  not  done  well  in  pure  stands  where  it  forms  crooked 
boles  and  long  side  branches.  When  used  as  a  filler  in  older  stands 
where  it  is  obliged  to  grow  rapidly  in  order  to  survive  it  does  well, 
having  much  better  form  than  when  grown  pure. 

Western  yellow  (bull)  pine  is  not  recommended  for  this  kind 
of  site.  It  has  grown  slowly  and  is  subject  to  a  fungous  disease 
which  threatens  to  kill  out  the  species  here. 

Two  other  European  pines,  Austrian  and  Corsican,  have  not 
proved  satisfactory.  In  one  instance  Austrian  pine  did  fairly 
well  but  in  general  losses  with  both  species  were  heavy  at  the  time 
of  planting  and  the  experiments  with  them  are  failures. 


CONCLUSIONS  133 

Pitch  pine  has  proved  as  unsatisfactory  as  it  is  when  it  grows 
naturally.  Its  form  is  not  good,  its  growth  is  slow  and  on  the 
whole  it  may  be  called  a  worthless  species  in  this  region. 

Of  the  two  Japanese  pines  used,  the  Japanese  black  was  a 
total  failirre  because  it  was  not  hardy.  The  Japanese  red  pine 
shows  considerable  promise  if  handled  properly.  It  has  a  strong 
tendency  when  quite  young  to  divide  at  the  base  into  several  stems 
and  form  a  bushy  tree.  When  severely  crowded,  however,  this 
species  will  normally  produce  only  one  sterh  and  in  such  cases  the 
trees  make  an  excellent  height  growth. 

The  value  of  Douglas  fir  on  sandy  soil  is  questionable.  The 
development  of  this  species  is  exceedingly  variable,  some  individuals 
having  done  very  well  while  others  are  much  stunted.  During  the 
last  five  years  this  tree  has  shown  up  much  better  than  it  did 
previously. 

The  European  larch  is  another  tree  which  varies  greatly  in 
growth,  some  individuals  having  equalled  the  Scotch  pine  in  size 
while  others  are  mere  shrubs.  Its  value  on  poor  soil  is  probably 
small. 

White  spruce  has  been  used  too  recently  to  furnish  any  data 
on  how  it  will  develop. 

The  other  conifers  found  on  the  tract,  two  species  of  fir  and  one 
of  arbor- vitae,  are  too  few  in  numbers  to  merit  comment. 

Hardwoods.  Only  three  of  the  hardwoods  used  need  mention. 
The}'  are  red  oak,  black  locust  and  chestnut.  When  not  attacked 
by  rodents  red  oak  makes  a  height  growth  equal  to  white  pine 
and  is  of  good  form,  indicating  that  this  species  is  adapted  to  poor 
soils.  However,  rabbits  kept  so  many  trees  cut  back  that  the 
stands  are  open  and  the  experiments  are  failures.  Without  excep- 
tion, black  locust  made  the  best  growth  of  any  species  used  on 
the  tract  but  the  trees  were  so  completely  mined  by  the  locust 
borer  that  the  plantation  had  to  be  abandoned.  Chestnut  once 
grew  naturally  on  the  tract.  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  the  results 
of  artificial  regeneration  of  this  species  might  have  been.  The 
fact  that  much  chestnut  still  persists,  even  after  being  killed 
back  repeatedly  by  the  blight,  indicates  that  this  tree  might  have 
been  profitably  grown  on  this  site. 

Other  hardwoods  used,  but  which  were  complete  failures, 
were  white  oak,  green  ash,*  tulip,*  black  birch,  hard  maple,* 
beech,  catalpa,  cotton  wood,  white  ash  and  hickory.* 


"No  trees  of  these  species  were  found  in  the  1924  survey. 


134  connecticut  experiment  station  bulletin  262. 

List  of  Species  Used  on  Experimental  Plots. 

Following  is  a  list  giving  the  common  and  scientific  names  and 
the  plot  locations  of  the  species  used  in  the  experiments. 

White  pine;    Pinus  strohus,  L.* 

Plot  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  11,  12,  15,  16,  17,  20,  21,  22,  24,  25,  26,  27, 
28,  29,  33,  34,  35,  36,  37,  38,  39,  41,  42,  43,  44,  46,  48, 
51,  52,  53,  54,  55,  56,  59,  60,  61,  62,  63,  68,  69. 

Red  pine;  Pinus  resinosa,  Ait. 

Plot  8a,  16,  17,  22,  24,  40,  57,  63,  65,  69a. 

Scotch  pine;   Pinus  syhestris,  L. 

Plot  1,  4,  14,  17,  20,  21,  23,  31,  34,  35,  36,  37,  56,  62,  64. 

Pitch  pine;   Pinus  rigida,  Mill.* 
Plot  3,  49. 

Austrian  pine;    Pinus  Laricio  var.  austriaca,  Endl. 
Plot  1,  24,  70. 

Corsican  pine;   Pinus  Laricio,  Poir. 
Plot  45. 

Jack  pine;   Pinus  divaricata,  Du  Mont  de  Cours. 
Plot  30,  46,  47. 

Western  yellow  pine ;   Pinus  ponderosa,  Laws. 
Plot  6,  66. 

Japanese  red  pine;   Pinus  densiflora,  Sieb  &  Zucc. 
Plot  1,  5,  16,  19,  52. 

Japanese  black  pine;   Pinus  Thunbergii,  Pari. 
Plot  54. 

Mountain  pine ;  Pinus  montana,  Mill. 
Plot  34,  45. 

Mugho  pine;   Pinus  montana  var.  Mughus,  Willk. 
Plot  17,  34,  45. 

Douglas  fir ;   Pseudotsuga  Douglasii,  Carr. 
Plot  1,  17,  38,  47. 

Balsam  fir;   Abies  balsamea,  Poir. 
Plot  13,  32. 

White  fir;  Abies  concolor,  Lindl.  &  Gord. 
Plot  17. 

European  larch;  Larix  europea,  de  C. 
Plot  1,  17. 

Arbor-vitae ;    Thuya  sp. 
Plot  17. 


LIST    OF    SPECIES  135 


Norway  spruce;   Picea  excelsa,  L. 

Plot  8a,  8b,  10,  32,  41,  42,  43,  44,  46,  47,  69. 

White  spruce;  Picea  canadensis,  Mill. 
Plot  18,  32. 

Red  oak;  Quercus  rubra,  L. 
Plot  4,  17,  40,  48,  50,  51. 

White  oak;  Quercus  alba,  L.* 
Plot  17. 

White  ash;   Fraxinus  americana,  L. 
Plot  17. 

Black  birch;  Betula  lenta,  L. 
Plot  59. 

Grey  birch;  Betula  popiilifolia.  Marsh.* 
on  nearly  every  plot. 

Beech;  Fagus  americana,  Sweet. 
Plot  20,  21,  55,  56,  57. 

Catalpa;  Catalpa  sp.  x 

Plot  5. 

Cottonwood;   Populus  deltoides,  Marsh. 
Plot  6. 

Basswood;    Tilia  americana,  L. 
Plot  47. 

Chestnut;  Castanea  dentata,  Borkh.* 
Plot  7,  8a,  8b,  27,  57,  61,  63,  64,  65,  66. 

Black  locust;    Robinia  Pseudacacia,  L. 
Plot  17,  19,  57,  58,  59. 


•Found  growing  naturally,  as  well  as  where  used  in  experiments. 


5388    "71 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


;5u1bcs0zu954669 


